BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We must stand and fight the freedom-hating fat lobby

When does the right of freedom of speech need to be limited,certainly I say when prejudice and hate are involved. If one is against discrimination based on the criteria of Sex,Race,Religion,etc. Then certainly and logically one must be against the discrimination of overweight or obese persons. Freedom of speech while some may not admitted can develop to a very dangerous thing,it allows for the utterance of prejudice. And prejudice can very easily develop into hate,hate then can develop into retaliation as your cited article explains,the violence experienced by Marsha Coupe because she is overweight [1]"I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train" and she adds ""They say 'Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle! '". Certainly,everyone reading this article is against violence,especially if you're the one experiencing this violence. Legislation is brought up when there is a need for it,and again sourcing your article Dr. Ian Campbell agrees with the need to protect overweight people " People who are very overweight do experience a lot of prejudice both in their social life and working life and do need some protection. "But,I must add that he does not think legislation will have an immediate effect on the situation. However,he does go on to elaborate more on the cause of people being overweight "We know that genetic and social reasons can lead to this very complex problem' "For instance, people in inner cities are much more likely to be overweight because of poorer education, poorer housing and poorer job opportunities. He continues with "Not everyone has a free choice about controlling their weight. "And this in point repudiates your claim of people having control of their eating and exercising habits. And like F. A. Hayek explained in the[2] Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two "I want plans by the many not by the few" and with Obesity in the United States projected to continue its rise over the next 18 years, extending to 42% of Americans by 2030[3],we better comply with the soon to be almost half of the United States population. Cited sources: 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 2. . http://www.youtube.com... 3. . http://articles.latimes.com...
We must stand and fight the freedom-hating fat lobby

Many of you, I know, will be familiar with a place called America, but for those members who have never heard of this country, it is a former British colony located between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The climate and terrain are both varied, the staple food is the "hamburger" (which is actually made from beef, not ham); the national dress consists of denim trousers, checked shirts, "cowboy" boots and "ten-gallon" hats and the national pastime is "cruising" around town in huge cars shooting things. Interestingly, the natives of this renegade province describe their country as "the land of the free". Well, Americans certainly do enjoy greater freedoms of speech and expression than, say, North Koreans, but there are still limits. For example, in an American city called San Francisco, it is a crime to be "fat-ist" - that is, to make negative remarks about people who are overweight. (1) But these restrictions on free speech do not go far enough for the fat: they have now banded together to lobby legislators around the world to have people who make negative remarks or judgments about overweight people criminalized. For example. in Britain, ordinary citizens may soon be prosecuted for hate crimes if they make certain remarks about the fat. Sadly, this means that gossiping women will no longer be able to 'chew the fat' but will, instead, have to 'chew excessive body mass'; farmers will no longer live off 'the fat of the land', rather the 'high-calorific dietary bi-product of the land' and 'corporate fat cats' will, in future, have to be referred to as 'corpulent feline businesspersons'. Furthermore, in order to avoid prosecution, music stores will have to clear their shelves of any records made by Fatboy Slim and Fats Domino, as well as all copies of Lip Up Fatty by Bad Manners. In addition, history books dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict will have to be burned because they will contain references to the former leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Yasser Arafat (Yasser Araweightproblem in future texts). And, worst of all, one of Britain's best loved restaurants, the Fat Duck (2), will either have to change its name or close its doors. Of course, people who are targeted for an aspect of their physical appearance that is beyond their control, such as the colour of their skin or a disability, should be protected but the law should not be extended to cover lazy or greedy people: over 99% of people who are overweight are so because they exercise too little and eat too much. We must resist the attempts of the fat lobby to limit our freedom of speech. We must make the fat understand that we, the people, will not be gagged - we must make it clear that this fight will not be over until the lady with a higher-than-average BMI measurement sings. Thank you. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.thefatduck.co.uk... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Affirmative action policies should be justified in the US

Affirmative Action has changed the world for many minorities. I will argue for Affirmative Action. Anyone willing to argue against can join this debate and choose to debate against. Be my guest please :) Here are some definitions and overall view of Affirmative Action -affirmative action: policy of favouring members of disadvantaged groups/minorities who suffer from past discrimination within races -justified: act to be just/right -US: within the states Feel free to join :)
Reduce U.S. military and/or police presence in South Korea Japan Afghanistan Kuwait Iraq or Turkey

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Because I've been pressed for time and admittedly waited until the last minute to post a round, I'll use this space as a framework for setting up my arguments and presenting some examples of things I will be mentioning in this discussion. Topics I plan to touch on include: a) How America looks to the rest of the world in light of their presence here; b) How the countries themselves respond to American presence; c) How it ultimately effects our foreign policy in general; d) Whether or not staying in these places is actually useful; e) Whether it stands on a cost-benefit analysis to stay; f) How much money it's costing, and what it means for us; g) How this issue divides the nation; h) The exploitation and other immoral acts that occur as a direct result; etc. I welcome my opponent to begin making his opening arguments in the next round (as he is the instigator of a non-agnostic resolution, and thus accepts burden of proof) or he may merely choose to present a similar framework, and allow me to make the opening arguments in R2.
New Star Wars Movie is Racist

You are stating it is racist, but it's not. It is not racist that I live in a gated community devoid of blacks. It is not racist that I live in a mostly white area. It is not racist that I like white beaches. It is not racist that Jar Jar brinks spoke like a Jamaican. Your entire post was about stereo types and your woe is me attitude towards life and had nothing supportive of racism. perhaps you feel that is semantics, but it's not. You needed to consult a dictionary to figure out the difference between racism, bigotry, and stereotypes. How can you possibly read your first round and conclude it was anything about racism? It goes back to my first round point about it being an easy debate to win. If you claim this portrayal of the white man is racist, then prove it. What did they do to show whites to be inferior? Not having whites in the movie, or held to a limited roll, or even died in the movie. That's what happens. You think Han Solo should live forever? Wouldn't that be racism - a life longevity better than any other creature in the now 7 movies? The problem with your position that you fail to see is you are giving the other side power. You are enabling them to continue this race debate and divide. Your debate and position means you accept the paradigm that you are a racist because you do not have black friends, or hang out in black clubs, or don't watch black shows. You are setting the standard for racism to be disagreement. You are bastardizing what racism is - yet you complain about what seems like affirmative action and white guilt. If you don't want to continue here, then go make another debate and pretend this one was about my semantics. You are the one trying to fit your myopic view of a movie into a racist mold. You are the one giving the enemy the key to the city. Go prove how racist you really are for not having more white guilt and not watching more BET. Go march with BLM and tell the world how important it is that blacks and whites be represented equally on TV and in movies.
New Star Wars Movie is Racist

Disappointing, my opponents has chosen to argue in meaningless semantics. I forget I need to establish rules in order to avoid this type of silly meaningless drivel. I expect more from people I guess. That said just because I did not set definitions or such rules does not mean my opponent can establish them himself self servingly. All i need to do is provide my own definitions from reputable sources and it is done. First Racist can be an adjective to describe a noun or pronoun; Adjective: a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it. According to Cambridge Dictionary Online, Racist in the political sense as an Adjective means: G2;re=8;.s=8;st/ disapproving C2: In politics R03;believing that other R03;races are not as good as R03;your own and R03;therefore R03;treating them R03;unfairly. http://dictionary.cambridge.org... As it says a similar word in this context is 'disproving.' Thus the Title of the debate means "The new Star Wars Movie is Disapproving/Against whites" Same difference. I do not see much else that needs to be addressed other than opinion that I can safely disregard. And you have only senselessly distracted from the obvious goal of the debate. I will have to remake it and this time provide clear rules that only someone interested in a real debate take part.
New Star Wars Movie is Racist

I look forward to this debate. I have read your forward and have never saw the movie - perhaps enough reading will save me 20 bucks. That being said without ever seeing the movie I can beat you because of the obvious flaws in your argument. A movie cannot be racist. Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Secondly, your entire opening was about at best bigotry - not racism. Good luck.
(Silly Debate) The Whovian Fandom is Filled With Fangirls Who Desire Eyecandy.

My opponent is arguing that the Whovian fandom is, in fact, not filled with fangirls that only care for the eyecandy. My first point is the uproar over the casting of Peter Capaldi as the latest Doctor. The only points made against it referred to his age, while nobody seemed to claim that he was not a good enough actor. It boils down to the fangirls being upset that Peter Capaldi wasn't a young pretty-boy. My second point is the disregard for the classic episodes. Many members of the fandom have never heard of Susan Foreman or how the Doctor worked for UNIT when he was stuck on Earth. These classic episodes do not provide the appealing actors that the fangirls desire. I will accept that many of the classic episodes are lost, but there are enough to form the linear storyline that crucially shows up in the reboot.
"Harsh Interrogation" should not have secrecy protections

Thank you for this debate. I have one reason why the United States Federal Government should keep all of their harsh interrogation techniques to themselves as a "National Secret": We don't want our enemies to know our techniques, because they will adapt against them. If we release our harsh interrogation techniques to the public, it will immediately find its way to Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and other organizations in opposition of the Federal Government. If their agents learn about our techniques, then they will learn how to fight against them. Hypothetically, if we used electrocution, they could build up an immunity to electrocution like they do with poison, adding a little more power with every jolt until they can be unaffected by our strongest interrogation electrocutions. http://en.wikipedia.org...(medical) Naturally, they probably wouldn't be completely immune to our techniques, but they'd mellow the effect greatly, so that whenever the Government releases their latest new technique, it would soon become worthless. That is why it is best for them to keep their techniques to themselves. Thank you.
"Harsh Interrogation" should not have secrecy protections

I am taking this round solely to lay the parameters for this debate. Con will get the first "argument" as I will make none in this first round. This debate is to determine whether or not actions to commit waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation" techniques that the Bush administation is accused of should not have the protections of any "National Secret" status. As PRO, I will be tasked with establishing that these actions should not have any secrecy status, that President Obama was right in releasing the memos to the public. I should have the burden of proof or reason. CON will need to establish the converse: that any harsh interrogation techniques, even if considered torture under the international Geneva convention, must be kept as a national secret. I look forward to a civil and well-reasoned debate with any who takes up this challenge. Good luck!
There is no such thing as a "political debate".

The State is a monopoly of legitimized (not legitimate), initiated force in a geographical area. While people will talk, take sides on issues and seem to "debate", ultimately anyone who disagrees with the decision of the majority (someone not paying their taxes [extortion] for example) will have armed, aggressive criminals in blue costume come to their door. There is no civilized debate at the barrel of a gun. There are debates relating to politics, like this one, but no "political" debates. In short, there is no such thing as political debate, instead it is political threat.
Fame shouldnt be so accesible.

My Arguement is basically based on a few impliments I looked into, Fame should not be so easy to claim. Nowadays you get famous for simply everything, everyday we see someone new in the limelight, the music acting and arts industry is simply based on letting People in and out and grabbing and exploiting fame. I mean for eg: (Megan fox)Who had a consecutive number of surgerys, and was in just a few films made FHMs sexiest woman! her sucess has nowhere been as high as for eg: Angelina Jolie, who the recent megan fox compared herself to. My arguement: stop letting anyone have there claim ! We live in to much of a social- manipulated society to let people who claim to be either remotley talented , or just in a reality tv show bash the magazines
Bride kidnapping rape

As a response to your first argument about the fact that the bride provided consent, I will refer back to my first arguments that I written. "(5.) The kidnapped bride explicitly demands she be released from the hands of the women who were trying to convince her to calm down (13:53), (6.) The kidnapped bride begins to reluctantly submit to the groom"s family after several hours of resistance (16:00), (7.) The kidnapped bride then goes on to admit, that the reason she did not continue to fight once in the presence of the grooms family is because she felt that she did not have the opportunity or free choice to leave (27:05), (8.) In cases of rape laws- and the judicial system, as a whole- must acknowledge that victims may not always resist or continue to resist for an array of reasons- but this lack of resistance does not undermine or diminish the occurrence of rape (165.2.3-4)." These statements are a clear example of what non-traditional rape is. When presented with a situation where a woman feels genuinely unsafe and recognizes the fact that she cannot escape her situation, the woman will reluctantly give into her rapist/kidnapper. "From some men"s point of view, the problem is that some women who "no" would be willing to say "yes" or at least to "go along" if properly pressured (177.5.2). In response to your "risk bodily harm" argument, rape does not necessarily require any use of force for it to be constituted as rape. If you look back to my argument in round two you will see how the use of force is not always included in rape cases. There are expert marshal arts fighters who know how to attack their opponent without putting a single bruise on their bodies. Your following argument that states that the bride had consented to the marriage is invalid because at no point in the video does the bride state that she wanted to be married off. Rather, she states that this is the way her culture is and she has to accept their practices. She states that she would have been willing to marry only after graduation and completion of her degree (27:15). The kidnapped bride was not aware of any of her options because she was clearly not given any other option but to accept this union. The grandmothers and females all kept her in the tent for hours only to have her reluctantly accept the marriage proposal. The bride had not wanted and physically resisted the union. In addition her family was clearly aware of the kidnapping because when the grooms family showed up with the goats in less then an hour, the brides family had a whole feast prepared therefore, they were well aware of the kidnap. How should she "know" of her options when her family knew of the kidnap and did not stop try to put an end to it? Therefore, the rape that the groom committed is constituted as non-traditional rape, where the use of force is not a necessity for it to be rape. The bride is not given any opportunity to leave and escape the union since her family supported the kidnap and she had no resources available.
Bride kidnapping rape

You say that even if the bride kidnapping is moral--not immoral--it would consequently be immoral if it "occurred without the consent" of the bride (1.2.1). Furthermore, you add that if the bride does not consent, then the act is not just immoral, but an act of rape (1.2.2). However, as noted in my original argument, there is obvious consent granted by the kidnapped bride (15:42). Specifically, the kidnapped bride is aware that when the family of the kidnapper offers her a scarf of marriage, she technically has the choice to reject that scarf by taking it off (14:53). Just moments after the scarf is placed on her head, the kidnapped bride not only expresses her consent by not removing the scarf--though she is aware, because of her knowledge of the tradition, that she has the option to do this and what it would mean--but also accepting candy from the women who have placed the scarf on her head (15:44). More telling, however, is that the only actions that occurred when the kidnapper"s female family members were trying to convince the kidnapped bride to accept the marriage proposal were the scarf wrapping of the head and the offering of candy (15:44). At no point did the kidnapped bride face physical harm nor was her life in danger (15:40). Non-consensual force in the context of rape, however, requires that the woman or victim risk bodily harm as an expression of her will to resist, as cited in my original argument (165.1). You say that that the kidnapped bride obviously did not consent or initially resented consenting, because she had originally voiced her desire to complete school before marriage (1.2.11). Simply because she had originally not wanted the marriage, for whatever the reason (in this case, the reason being furthering her education), does not mean that when the actual kidnapping and marriage proposal occur, she is unable to grant consent or allowance. The kidnapped bride"s initial stance is not as important as the decision she makes once the act has occurred. Take, for example, Woman X who vows to never have sex with Man Y; if one day, Man Y asks Woman X to have sex with him--even goes as far to beg her to have sex--and Woman X ultimately grants consent, and has sex with Man Y, that is not an example of an occurrence of rape. Her feelings prior to the act, in a case like this, are ultimately not essential to the crucial question: if rape occurred. And this issue of consent essentially ties back to the issues of morality and patriarchal societies. When making a decision, a person inevitably must use filters that are formed by the society in which the person believes. In this case, in order to best determine whether or not the kidnapped bride did, in fact, consent, we must first understand consent in the society and the way in which consent is given. In this case, the kidnapped bride was aware of her options--aware that she could reject the scarf of marriage, ultimately rejecting the entire proposal and kidnapping--but she actually offered consent. Thus, since the kidnapped bride offered consent, this entire process does not constitute rape.