BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That women need men like fish need bicycles

May I begin by first apologising for leaving this just a few hours before the deadline. First, quoting the negative; "He justifies it by saying that the birth defect can be cured, yet there is no proof to follow up his theory. Also, no amount research can change the fact that all of the births would be female." I begin by saying perhaps the affirmative has not been clear enough. Most of this debate will have to be theoretical, which may be suggested by the topic given its rather light hearted nature. So no, there is no proof to back up the claim the birth defect can be cured only a logical conclusion from past experience. Further, I remind the negative that the fact all births would be female is the point. The topic is women to not need men. The research shows women can make the sperm themselves. There is, therefore, no need for men. "'Manufacturing' your own baby? That is absolutely ridicoulous. It is high time that we stop treating children like science experiments." I remind the negative that I said this is something wrong and that should be debated somewhere else. I am only using the point that we can target specific genomes and use them for a better purpose. "…women still need men. If not for the future of the world, but to build, defend, and provide" I remind the negative once more that they must prove why men are needed in situations. I will admit, finding sources on the internet to prove this may be difficult and I would ask the negative not be penalised on that basis. However, the negative still must try to prove this. Simply saying to build defend and provide is not enough. Women are more than capable of doing all of these things. Proceeding with the affirmatives case now, we shall take a look at the world scale. We know men will always be more aggressive than women. We also know that on a global scale, the best way to prove strength is through war. It's a practice that has been around since the age of exploration. Women will usually tend to talk out emotions (even in anger) before resorting to violence. Is this a path towards a simpler world? Perhaps. We also know that as long as there are men and women, there is going to be conflict between them in the world community. Pay, social rights, equality not under the law but in the eyes of those who hire. Without men in society these would be removed and act as the start of an even society.
That women need men like fish need bicycles

These are direct excripts of my opponents articles "In most men, spermatagonial cells eventually develop into mature, functional sperm but this progression was not achieved in this experiment." Also, my opponents article stated, "All children born of this method would be female, due the lack Y chromosomes, and there is high chance of birth defects. Eggs also can be created from male bone marrow, but men looking to reproduce would still need to find a surrogate mother to handle the gestation period." My opponents articles actually support my case. He justifies it by saying that the birth defect can be cured, yet there is no proof to follow up his theory. Also, no amount research can change the fact that all of the births would be female. His third article futher supports my case by saying, "Many say this advancement takes it too far." I completely agree. 'Manufacturing' your own baby? That is absolutely ridicoulous. It is high time that we stop treating children like science experiments. My opponent stated that, "Furthermore, evidence suggests that men are more likely to commit crime then women " But just read the fine print at the bottom of the screen. "Offenders as a percentage of the population: by age, 2000, England & Wales" This source is invalid, because it is outdated, and focused only on a certain area, making it biased only to support my opponents case. If my opponent feels that any of my points are incorrect, please say so. My opponents main arguement was the birth argument. However, this 'research' is not complete and still faulty. So as of today, women still need men. If not for the future of the world, but to build, defend, and provide. It is not that women are inferior, or supirior, but we are ALL equal.
That women need men like fish need bicycles

Observation 1 : I'm not sure which way that women do, or do not need men, because it is not stated in the resolution. Therefore, I am left to assume that this is open to anything. Women need men because the future of the world depends on it. Our biological makeup states that clearly. We must interact and learn to live together in harmony so that we can. .. have intercorse and provide a legacy for the next generation to pick up on, so they can better society. Not only that, but if we do not live in harmony, it will most definately hinder scientific, medical, and any other process you can think of. Observation: 2 1. The Affirmative has the burden of proof 2. The Negative has the burden of clash Therefore, my opening speech should not be nessicary, so I have already solidified my case more than my oppoent, and unless he provides and introduction and clashes, (which the neg is supposed to do anyways) then I should win this case.
That women need men like fish need bicycles

I thank anyone who accepts this topic, I would prefer it to be a female, as I am a male arguing that women don't need men, so I think it would just spice things up a bit! Though I'll take any opponent, I don't mind. I've set four rounds and I would prefer it to be set out as the following; 1st round Pro and Con: Opening statements, introductions, etc 2nd round Pro: First set of arguments, definition etc 2nd Round Con: Rebuttal and first set of arguments 3rd Round Pro and Con: Rebuttal and second set of arguments, if need be 4th Round Pro and Con: Final rebuttals and closing statements Of course, I'm more than willing to change some of this, but that's what I'd prefer. Oh and it should be obvious, though Pro will be trying to prove that women really don't need men and Con will be trying to prove that women actually do need men. I look forward to a response!
Cats are better than dogs

I accept.Resolved: Cats are better than dogs C1) Burden of proof PRO is making an objective statement, and therefore has the burden of proof--and must demonstrate that cats are objectiely better than dogs. Not only that, but he must also demonstrate a criteria to establish objectivity, one which transcends subjective preferences. C2) PlagiarismThis is my strongest impact. All of PRO's case has been copy and pasted from this link: http://www.pets4homes.co.uk...Therefore, vote CON. Thank you.
Cats are better than dogs

While you shouldn"t leave your cat alone for the long term, it is perfectly acceptable to work fairly long hours or go away overnight without having to worry about your cat, as long as they are left with everything that they need. Cats are self sufficient and don"t mind spending time alone, whereas dogs get bored and upset if they are left to their own devices for more than a few hours! While you will need to clean out your cat"s litter tray if you provide one, other than this, cats take care of their own toileting provision, and bury their waste! Dogs, on the other hand produce rather potent offerings, and dog owners have to get up close and personal with it in order to clear it up safely! This line says it all, really. Dogs might be man"s best friend, but in ancient Egypt, cats were worshipped as Gods, something that cats have never forgotten. Quite where we went wrong along the way by considering that cats are simply companions and pets now as opposed to the regal, mystical beings that they actually are is hard to define, but the humble mutt simply cannot compete with this one! Meow! Cats are incredibly finicky about their cleanliness, and spend large portions of their days washing themselves and getting their fur just so. Dogs on the other hand, heartily enjoy disgusting stinky messes, and will often make a beeline for the nearest puddle, pile of fox pooh or reeking, decaying carcass, and take great delight in rolling around in it, against the wishes of their owners! Cat mathematics dictates that you can fit four or more cats comfortably into a double bed and still have room for yourself! Trying to squeeze yourself into bed alongside of a spread-eagled Saint Bernard dog, however, can prove to be more of a challenge and can lead to the odd sleepless night spend on the sofa! With the occasional exception of very vocal cats such as the Siamese or the Bengal, cats are very quiet animals who do not make a big noisy fuss! Cats do not bark at the sound of the doorbell, howl along to the radio, or otherwise talk back so loudly that your neighbours can hear them. Shhh! Even feeding the largest, hungriest of cats will work out cheaper than feeding a dog, and the savings don"t stop there! Everything about caring for a cat costs less than the equivalents for a dog, including insurance, veterinary treatments, boarding, bedding, and flea and worming treatments. Even the littlest of dogs need room to stretch their legs and a large enough home to contain them comfortably, while even the largest of cats is happy in the smallest of places! Even if you live in a studio apartment or a tiny house, the chances are that you have room for a cat.
Is the US NAVY still useful

First off, I'd like to remind my opponent that we're debating the Navy, not Air Force. Granted the Navy does have a small air force of their own, its not being taken into consideration as people generally think about ships when on mentions the Navy. Section 1: The air craft carrier is the most built ship the Navy has and its weakest by far. Why do I say that? You may ask. Because its the most vulnerable. Though they carry up to 500 planes, they have no defences against missiles, such as the KH-22, or submarines. But even with all those planes, there's no way they can get enough up in the air in enough time to defend the ship should it be attacked by another vessel. Hence, we used to have ships protecting them, but since sea battles are now only a thing in video games, we've dropped those habits and aircraft carriers have taken to travelling alone. And with Russia exporting the KH-22E, our carriers are at threat to anyone and everyone who buys them.http://sploid.gizmodo.com... Section 2: I'd like to point out to my opponent that North Korea and their nuclear bombs/experiments have nothing to do with the topic of the debate. Though, I could use it to prove my point, seeing as the Navy can't stop a nuke, but its still off the main topic. Section 3: Again, my opponent is getting off track a bit here. But I will rebut his arguments anyway. To start, I'd like to point out that North Korea is not a Communist country but actually a democracy that follows the traditions of Juche "self-reliance". Also, if we were to go to war with North Korea again, it would be strategically wise to keep the Navy out of it seeing as they have a much stronger Navy than we do. And, even if we go to war with Korea, we still won't be allowed to use nuclear weapons because that would be breaking the Geneva Convention laws. If were to break any of these treaties, the rest of the world would turn on us especially seeing as the UN usually looks to us to enforce these treaties in the first place. But there are debates going on about whether or not they should be abolished. But even if they nuked us, we would ultimately win, especially since China abandoned them shortly after they threatened us. http://www.globalfirepower.com...http://www.geneva-academy.ch...
Is the US NAVY still useful

now i will have to comment on section 2 with the usage of an EMP it would also cripple the any aviation vehicles in the radius. one of the many ships that are used by the navy would be the Aircraft Carrier. now we must take into consideration that the earth surfaces consists of more than 70% water, and this where the Aircraft Carrier comes into play. the purpose and perks of an aircraft carrier can be read about in the link below. http://www.navy.mil... to use an example with the ceasefire between north and south Korea and the fact that north Korea has the capability of producing nuclear bomb ,for example the north Koreans beginning trial runs with h-bombs https://en.wikipedia.org... now in the chance of the Korean war getting started up again the US would have no choice but to provide aid to south Korea which is due to the fact that south Korea is a democratic nation and that north Korea is communist and if north Korea were to invade south Korea then considering the strong relations between south Korea and the US the US would undoubtedly intervene in the matter. example: now let's say that the ceasefire is ended by the north Koreans and were to invade south Korea. I would like to mention that north Korea also has a navy of its own. Thus the navy would have an opponent https://en.wikipedia.org... with the Korean war now in full swing the US would be able to legally use any form of a nuclear device. http://www.geneva-academy.ch...
Is the US NAVY still useful

Section 1: The true purpose of the Navy is to provide forward-deployed operations from the sea in support of peace and stability around the world, but they haven't been following this. Instead, they focus on maritime security, power projection, deterrence, sea control, humanitarian aid, and forward presence. Only one of those actually apply to the Navy, the rest are usually applied to the Coast Guard and Army. So they're practically stealing other branche's jobs.Maritime Security: One of 3 basic roles of the Coast Guard, developed in response to a series of catastrophic events that began in 1917.Power Projection: a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to apply all or some of its elements of national power.Deterrence: a strategy intended to disuade an adversary from taking an action that has not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something another state desires.Sea Control: the employment of naval forces, supported by land and air forces as appropriate, in order to achieve objectives in vital sea areas.Humanitarian Aid: action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain/protect human dignity during the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters.For those who know what each branch does, that last one (humanitarian aid) is one of the primary roles of both the National Guard and the Coast Guard.https://answers.yahoo.com...https://www.google.com...Section 2: Naval warfare is obsolete. In the modern day, there are numerous new weapons coming out. Every single one of them can easily tear apart a ship, or shut them down. One of the biggest threats to the Navy would be an EMP. Just about everything in the Navy runs on electricity, so an EMP blast would wipe them out pretty effectively. This just goes to show that the Navy just can't keep up with the modern warfare. And with aerial battles (dog fights) occurring more and more, sea battles will probably be a thing of the past. http://johntreed.com...http://content.time.com...Section 3: Hypothetically, if America, or any other National power, would be invaded, the Navy wouldn't play a part at all. To support this claim, I'm turning to Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and real life event of Pearl Harbor. In MW2, Russia invades the US, not from the sea, but from the Air. American radars pick up the aircraft, but its too late when they do. The Russian troops drop in and begin the invasion. Where's the Navy? Not involved. Through out the entire Modern Warfare series, the Navy plays a very little role, only having a part in MW3 which lasted only a few minutes. Even in Medal of Honor, a game which has always realistically portrayed the military, but in the newer ones the Navy isn't even present, let alone mentioned. Back to the subject on the invasion of the US. We already know that people could easily sneak in using Air Craft. We saw this during Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked. What's to stop other countries from doing trying that? If they did, and if we do have something to stop them, it won't be the Navy that uses it.http://content.time.com...
Is the US NAVY still useful

In this round, I will rebut my opponent's arguments but I will do so in a way to help my opponent in future debates. Section 1: First off, I'd like to point out that all but two of the branches have special forces units, the two that don't being the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. Second off, though my opponent did mention some jobs in the Navy that some would consider to be "elite", my opponent failed to explain how or why they are useful. Yes he provided a link for the Navy website, but for all anyone could know, the source could tell us just about as much as my opponent is. For my opponent, things one brings up in a debate, such as that, need to be explained. This provides a good standing point and occasionally a defense to one's argument. Section 2: Submarines aren't really a problem. There are a lot of anti-submarine weapons, such as torpedoes and the well known mines that ships have a tendency to drop in the water. The submarine is as dangerous and as much of a worry as any battleship the Navy can use against anybody. . http://www.epicos.com... Section 3: I'd like to point out that my opponent is using an unreliable source, so they could just as well be providing a fake article that some random person thought they'd make up. I'd also like to point out that if we did move our ships over there, it would start a war with China, and we would lose. For two reasons. 1, they have more people than we do. Based on Chinese culture, they'd fight down to the last child, while for us, once the military has fallen, we're very likely to go with it. 2, China has a noticeably more advanced and stronger Navy than we do. They could easily destroy an aircraft carrier at will. It wouldn't even be a naval battle, it'd be a series of carefully planned and played out attacks that would destroy our Navy. It probably won't even put any of their seamen or other soldiers in any kind of danger. And the war would be inevitable, especially seeing that China has already warned our Navy to stay away. . http://nationalinterest.org... . http://www.cnn.com... Section 4: Just because one branch has a weapon that the other's don't, doesn't mean its a useful branch. They all have their fair share of weapons that no other branch has. One could take each branches unique weapon, and they wouldn't change. They'd be the same as they were with it.
Is the US NAVY still useful

Now I would like to inform my opponent that my chrome book screen is not working so i'll be doing my agreement via tablet I would like to point out that the navy also has special operation groups these groups are: Navy seals Special warfare combatant-craft-crewmen Eod whom specialize in both ground and under water demolition defusion Navy diver Aviation rescue swimmer https://www.navy.com... I would also like to point out that they navy also possess ballistic missile submarines whom can easily stalk the ocean without being seen by anything above water https://en.m.wikipedia.org... I would also like to bring up the topic of the territorial disputes in the south China sea.https://en.m.wikipedia.org... From what the article is saying it may seem that later in the future that we may have to send the navy to stop the Chinese from incroaching on the smaller islands. The navy is the only us military branch that uses tomahawk missiles which can be launched via submarine or ship https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(missile)
Judas was right to betray Jesus.

Hello friends! I thank my opponent for holding this debate. I will plainly state that Judas WAS NOT RIGHT to betray Jesus. My whole case will be built on rebutting my opponents case therefore, I have no need for an opening argument. My opponent places the BOP on himself and describes how the OT permits the betrayal of Jesus. I will show in the later rounds how the OT does not permit this according to Jesus claims. I await my opponents further response.
Judas was right to betray Jesus.

I would like to invent a story to prove my point. After a very long journey to Jerusalem just before the passover, Yehudas b'Iscariot (Judas Iscariot) met accidental his father Bob (Yehubert in Hebrew) (invented name because he name is not mention in the NT). His father exited to see his son invited him for a meal and to see the things he learn while following his Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus). So Bob asked his son Yehudas what he was learning from his teacher Yeshua. "I am quite exited daddy" said Judas "Yeshua is the messiah! " "Really" Said Bob "That would be such a great news to have those Romans sent back where they belong have to have our land back. We only want peace! Finally G-d answered our prayers as in the time of Moses. " "No" Said Judas "you don't get it. The messiah is god! Yeshua received worship! He forgives sins, there is no gods but him" "The messiah is god? " said bob "Are you saying that Yeshua is god! " "Listen my son, you remember when we read the Torah (law) of Moses. " "Yes" said Judas "Well, I have been teaching you since you were a youth, and G-d was clear in His words. If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods (Deuteronomy 13:16). Furhtermore, G-d is not a man! Numbers 23:19" "You don't understand Daddy, he is the messiah! " said Judas "Why you said so my son? " said Bob "Well, the miracles! Yeshua could not cast out demons by the power of baalzebub! He resurrected people! " "Well, my son. This is not a way to determine if a prophet comes from G-d. Remember what Torah (Law) said: and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder , and the prophet says,"Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them. .. YOU Shall not listen, my son! " Did you grand-pa ever worship Yeshua? Then he is a new god! " "What should I do daddy! " Said Judas "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. " And so Judas did. He went to the authority that G-d put in place, the High Priest, as prescribed by the word of the L-rd by his servant Moses. There is now way to see Judas action as wrong, if Jesus claimed to be god.
Judas was right to betray Jesus.

Round 1 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 2 - Rebuttals Only Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements The Hebrew Bible (Old testament) will be the only authoritative word of G-d. New Testament can be use to prove a point. This is to see if the New Testament is an authoritative document or not.
must teacher's also wear school uniform

Imagine that a class is sitting at their desks waiting for their class to begin when their teacher walks in wearing old sweatpants and a stained tank-top. Would you imagine that those students would listen to the teacher or take the teacher seriously?. If a teacher is dressed like a student, a student will treat the teacher like one. Vice versa, if a teacher is dressed like a grown up or an authority figure, a student will treat them like one. A student is more likely to listen to a teacher who is wearing a professional-like outfit than a teacher who is dressed sloppy.
must teacher's also wear school uniform

No, I do think there should be a dress code. No mistake. But a uniform would mean all the male teachers dressed the same, and vice versa for the female teachers. These are professionals, so they absolutely should maintain an air of professionalism, but uniforms wouldn't be in any way helpful. As far as for students, if a teacher is judging them on their fashion choices, that is a whole separate issue. But some sort of dress code should apply. Like, no ripped clothes, no underwear showing, etc.