BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

My Arguments#1: The right to financial abortionMen do not have the right to a financial abortion in cases where they are unable to/don't want to provide for their child [1], whereas if a woman is unable to/doesn't want to provide for a child, she can have an abortion [2].#2: The Cancer funding gapProstate cancer gets under half the amount of funding that breast cancer gets [3], as pointed out by Prostate Cancer UK. Although it is one of the more treatable types of cancer, particularly if diagnosed early, one man dies every hour from it, says Prostate Cancer UK.#3: The Domestic violence shelter gap Despite the fact that 40% of domestic violence victims are men [4], and that when you factor in suicides, more men die as a result of it [5], there is approximately only one domestic violence shelter for men for every 180 there is for women [6].I'll leave it there for now.Thank you.Sources[1] Appel, Jacob M. “Women’s Rights, Men’s Bodies,” New York Times, December 2, 2005[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[4] http://www.theguardian.com...[5] Davis, Richard. Published by the "Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace issues". 2009. http://www.emeraldinsight.com...[6] http://j4mb.wordpress.com...
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

Resolution: In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.StructureCon will start with his opening in round 1, I will state my opening argument in round 2, and the rounds after that will be used for arguments and rebuttals until Con's round 4, where he'll simply say "End of debate".Rules1. No trolling2. No personal insults3. Con cannot write or imply an argument in the fourth round.4. [All Standard DDO Terms of Service apply]5. Breaking any of the rules will result in a 7-point forfeit.Thank you.
Superhero Battle.

Wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST YOU BLOODY WAIT!I THOUGHT THAT THIS FIGHT WAS ONE IN WHICH ONE TEAM AND THE OTHER TEAM HAD TIME TO PLAN THEIR ATTACK AND THEN IT WAS LIKE THEY SAID 3,2,1 GO.Jean grey would already have read the minds of the opponents before the fight and accordingly help her friends to be ready for the enemies' plans. She-Hulk wouldn't have let Hulk smash her because she is more agile and less clumsy than Hulk since she is fully intellectual and comprehensive of her surroundings and the plan while in hulk-form, male hulk has to be infuriatingly mad to be like that. Do you honestly think he will be able to resist a huge punching combo to his head full-force from she-hulk? You can't use the invincibility argument because of rule 7.Jean Grey, in phoenix mode can disintegrate ANY MATERIAL with her mind. Vile set is only effective against telepathy not telekinesis. So she couldn't read Siris' mind but could disintegrate him. However, if she went into phoenix mode she'd probably disintegrate all other 7 fighters and since suicide (in the kamikaze sense of the word) is what I'd consider a b*tch move in a superhero battle I think I'd say we should keep her stable but still she can rip him to shreds by denting his armour inwards thus squashing his ribcage into his heart.Just face it, for ghost rider to power his bike full speed he'd have to be at some distance from Juggernaut. Juggernaut can smash ANYTHING (EVEN DIAMOND OR JESUS' ERECT PENIS!) the moment he charges. If the bike has to accelerate, so can juggernaut and unless Ghost Rider's Bike, he accelerates at such a rate beyond laws of physics! SMASH! BOOM Ghost rider's bike breaks. Now a skinny skeleton against a ripped bodybuilding dude built to smash anything and everything up (Only weaker than all of the Hulks and stronger than the "Thing" when he is charging) is not a close match. Easily he would beat every bone in Ghost Rider's Body. His fire and chains are no match for a head butt with Juggernaut's armoured head (I assume that if you're permitted vile armour set I'm permitted Juggernaut's characteristic Helmet and wrist bands for protection and power).Superman is practically non-explosive, even by a powerful missile, when he's near yellow sun. Unless you really think Iron man can be faster than someone who can practically fly at speed of light you are foolish. Superman would merely be faster than the missile and if it was heat seeking he would fly up and around iron man blowing iron man himself up. His laser beams could also help blow up multiple missiles coming at once leaving one to do the blowing-up iron man job. All it would take is him to get 1 metre form iron man he is strong enough to even bite through his armour into his neck and poke a hole in his neck to let blood empty through the (now pulse-less) artery.Victory would be mine unless you seriously think your team would all attack before mine had a chance to make a plan. If this is the case you are being unrealistic and unfair since for yours to make a plan mine would have time too.
Superhero Battle.

So you still have 5 credits left. 2) Super heroines are allowed 4) Voters, please neglect my partners round 1 attacks as they were against the rules. Although I do appreciate my partners eagerness. Thank You ATTACKS HULK: Hulk gets angry and attempts to bash She-Hulk. The reason why Hulk will win is because he has a bigger body mass and goes into rage making him almost unstoppable. When Hulk goes into rage he feels almost no pain. She-Hulk on the other hand will feel pain and cannot react fast enough to Hulk's attack because it came so fast. IRON MAN: Iron man blasts Superman will his hand laser, the equivalent to Superman's eye laser. But Iron man will win this battle of the fates because he has rocket boots and a computer in his helmet that can detect any weakness. Not to mention that when Iron man shoots his lasers and Superman counters with his lasers, it leaves a gap open for Iron man to launch his missiles therefore severely wounding Superman. GHOST RIDER: Ghost rider powers his bike to full speed and races towards an obsidian wall. He quickly maneuvers out of the way at the last second. The Juggernaut however is not so lucky, he cannot stop and even though he does break the wall it temporarily stuns him. Just enough time for Ghost Rider to hit him with his whip and send the Juggernaut to the pits of hell. SIRIS: I equip him with the Vile Set. The Vile armor and helmet prevent Jean from using her powers against him. Using the Infinity Blade Siris quickly and efficiently takes her down. Credits Remaining: 5
Superhero Battle.

I love hulk... But you said no character can be invincible so if we are discussing a non-invincible hulk I can think of a way to win.My team:-Superman-She-Hulk (I assume by superhero you for sure include superheroines)-Juggernaut-Jean Grey (same issue as with she-hulk)Round one of attacks (starting with 5 credits): Superman flanks iron man, the moment iron man attempts to attack in any manner, superman uses intense speed and strength to one huge spurt of flight thrusting his fist right through iron man's powerful chest-logo. Essentially killing him. She-hulk will use She-hulk smash (on Hulk's head itself, by jumping onto it) to counter hulk the moment he smashes or tries to hit another player. Unlike hulk, her transformation is voluntary and she maintains 100% intellectual capability while doing so and thus can flank him, constantly hiding behind his line of vision the entire time. Juggernaut can smash ANYTHING at all in his way when running, and continuously (infinitely up to the speed of light) gains momentum as he runs. His purpose is to chase ghost rider constantly, if ghost rider ever dares to turn to face him, he will be smashed apart. I use 2 credits to give Jean Grey the fountain of youth. I will use her telekinetic powers to focus in on Siris and disintegrate him immediately as soon as she can. Credits left: 3
Superhero Battle.

2) Your team may consist of 4 superheroes/villains 3) "Infinity Gauntlet" is not allowed. 4) We each start out with 5 credits. In the beginning of each round argument, you must write how many credits you have. 5) Credits are used to buy power-ups/items that may be used for one round: -Fountain of youth: makes one of your superheros/villains unattackable for one round (2 credits) -Acid: Take away one argument your opponent makes for one round. (5 credits) (If my opponent has any more ideas for power-ups or items please say them in this round and I will consider them. ) 6) Game-play is simple, debate why your heroes can beat your opponents heroes in a fight. 7) No "invincible" or god heroes/villains 8) Each hero you choose can have a special power but it will cost energy. In other words, if you use that power that hero is open to endless attack for that round. 9) You get to choose the power but it cannot take the form of the "power-ups" and cannot grant the player invincibility or "god" like powers My heroes/villains -Hulk -Ghost Rider -Iron Man - Siris (Infinity Blade II)
We Need More Representatives in the House of Representatives

There simply aren't enough experts at politics to fit 10 thousand into the House of Representatives.consider that each has only got a two-year term and that during this term they are not part of the Senate (which is the main body of government). It is really just silly and unnecessary to require any more and quite frankly there's not an actual reason to need more."More Reps would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people." Is not sufficient reason to change an embedded philosophy of the constitution."More Reps would fix campaign finance issues." considering that the current situation is perfectly fine with the current number of reps and that you have full burden of proof on the matter I think that if anything increasing the number of Reps would only increase conflicts since more diverse opinions and arguments would arise more frequently."More Reps would minimize, or eliminate, the issues occurring between the popular vote & the Electoral College." the problem is that there are simply not enough reps to do it and it is thus extremely impractical to do.You have full burden of proof on this matter and have to directly prove that the 435 currently there are definitely a huge amount below what is needed. Merely saying that there are Americans who are upset and voting against parties due to this is an immature argument based on irrational justification.
We Need More Representatives in the House of Representatives

I will be brief as well. 1 Rep for 30,000 Constituents Would Increase The Size Of The House. Con argued that we should use the original Constitutional framework to determine that a ratio of one Representative to 30,000 constituents was satisfactory. According to recent US Census data, the US has 315,226,763 people (1). If we were to have one Representative for 30,000 constituents, our Congress would consist of over 10,000 representatives. Con’s argument for 10,000 representatives is significantly larger than the 435 representatives we currently have; therefore, Con’s argument does not negate the resolution, but support it. I affirm my prior arguments and await my opponent’s rebuttal. Sources: . http://www.census.gov...
We Need More Representatives in the House of Representatives

Instead of rebutting your points I shall merely open my case fully this round to discuss our cases comparaively later on.I am going be short, concise and to-the-point. Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states by population, as determined by the census conducted every ten years. Each state, however, is entitled to at least one Representative. The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."[1] Congress regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.[2] The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the1960 census. The Constitution does not provide for the representation of the District of Columbia or of territories. The District of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are represented by one non-voting delegate each. Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner, but other than having a four-year term, the Resident Commissioner's role is identical to the delegates from the other territories. The five Delegates and Resident Commissioner may participate in debates; prior to 2011,[3] they were also allowed to vote in committees and the Committee of the Whole when their votes would not be decisive.[4]In conclusion, there is sufficient number of representatives according to experts who put together constitutions years ago. 1:30,000 is a good ratio (according to them and I don't see why not).Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.npr.org...[4] http://hdl.loc.gov...
We Need More Representatives in the House of Representatives

I started a debate on this; however, my opponent had to forfeit so I am putting this out again. I'm interested in having a spirited discussion of the issues associated with Congress setting it's maximum size at 435 voting representatives for a population of over 313 million people. I will be arguing in favor of the resolution. Rules: Let's have a civilized debate. No biting and/or comparison of opponent's mother to various wild animals, please! :) Provide the sources for any facts introduced in the debate. 4 rounds of debate: 1st round is for introductions only. Last round is for conclusions/summary; no new material added in the last round.
Should Immigrants pay a fee percentage, on any money sent out of this country.

My opponent appears not to understand the basic requirements of this debate. It's his proposition--he has to prove it. I've offered ample evidence that my opponent's proposition is nonsense. I've explained a positive case why remittances are good and why immigrants contribute to the economy and are net benefits. I've pointed out a fatal flaw in my opponent's case by explaining that he's proposing that we punish immigrants without regard to whether they engage in the unlawful behavior he complains of, which is unconstitutional. I've also explained that my opponent's case falls short because he discusses only illegal immigration in a limited number of states (apparently Arizona, for the most part), when legal immigration accounts for the vast majority of immigrants. His proposition was about all immigrants, but his justifications and discussion involved only a small subset of immigrants in a small subset of states (at best).All of those were accomplished through providing fact and the use of straightforward logic.As far as my opponent's claim that I have provided just my word that his information is inaccurate, his assertion is patently false and goes to further demonstrate the wilful ignorance and deceit with which he has approached this entire debate. Did my opponent identify a place where I simply made a claim that he has given inaccurate information? No. And why might this be? Perhaps it's because a review of what I wrote would show any reader that I have explained my reasons and conclusions about my opponent's misrepresentations and provided sources that are easy for the reader to access if the reader believes that I myself might not be representing the situation accurately. The reason I can give my own assessments and links to the sources rather than pasting unsourced text into my arguments is twofold:1. I have evaluated the sources and thought about them sufficiently to render an analysis; and2. I'm not afraid of what the reader might learn about my use of the sources.As things stand, my opponent is not even effective at using insults to trigger a degradation of the argument into a name-calling exchange that he might actually win, which is what his approach has been all along. It's too bad if he can't take his position being called complete and utter nonsense, but that's the result of carefully explained evaluation, not a pejorative in place of an argument. It's not that surprising that my opponent would try to land a final blow about me "passing a test" in an attempt to elicit an emotional response from me.Maybe he should insult my mother.The outcome of this debate is clear--aside from insolence in place of argument and his forfeiture of a round, my opponent's position and arguments are without logic or merit. I have won this debate, and any logical vote will be cast for me. Pleaxe make sure that you cast your vote for me, because this is alot of trouble to go to to just get trolled.
Should Immigrants pay a fee percentage, on any money sent out of this country.

I believe my opponent didn't think I would go to the trouble of locating all of those partially referenced and misrepresented sources. I think he was counting on giving the appearance of having brought facts to the table of which I would appear unaware. No dice. A statement like your above is a 'none statement' signifying nothing,, while boasting about having checked on the information I presented, and hinting that you found evidence that my information wasn't accurate, you then don't provide any proof, by providing material to back up your statements and innuendos, just your word, that refutes what I have posted. Sorry, your reply doesn't pass the test, but nice try anyway. Question: Did the democrats vote for cutting funding to the America embassies or not.
Should Immigrants pay a fee percentage, on any money sent out of this country.

I would like to thank lookingatissues for posting this interesting idea, which is that immigrants should pay a fee on any money sent out of the country.Putting niceties aside, the Pro's premises and conclusion are all utter nonsense.The Pro claims (offering no support) that immigrants impose a wide array of costs that they do not help pay for. This is patently false. Clear data shows that immigrants pay vastly more in taxes than they consume in benefits, by tens of billions of dollars. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...The Pro's premises are, then, false, because immigrants actually contribute so much that, logically, they are helping to fund benefits for natural born citizens. Pro should instead argue that natural born citizens should find the same industry and self-reliance that immigrants have found.These facts should not be surprising, even to a person who does no research at all before spouting opinions, because it is natural to expect that individuals with the resourcefulness to set out for an unknown nation are likely to be good businessmen and workers. In fact, they are (as the compilation source cited above shows), and likely generate business growth in the U.S. and thus employment for U.S. citizens. Immigrants who send money home are investment-minded, and likely to make good decisions about who will use their hard-earned money well. Their investment in people they know in their home nations helps to drive economic stability and growth in other nations, which is beneficial to the U.S. because of reduced security threats and an increased availability of credible trading partners. Furthermore, immigrants spend much of their money in the U.S.So, the Pro's premises are absurd. Immigrants contribute more than they consume, benefit the economy for all U.S. workers, and contribute to international growth, which is good for U.S. business and security.The conclusion that we should charge additional fees on the money they send abroad is based on false premises and is contrary to good sense because it would diminish a positive use of the money.Importantly, the concept that we should tax immigrant money sent abroad based on some harm to the U.S. is completely vacant because there is no reason to justify the discriminatory treatment of immigrants as opposed to other people who send their money abroad, and there is alot of it. We cannot simply treat one group of people as if their property rights are insignificant. Furthermore, the proposition is illogical because there are more important problems to solve, such as the propensity of U.S. corporations to funnel IP into offshore havens for the expresss purpose of tax evasion. I wonder who is getting the free ride, the hard workers who pay taxes and send some money abroad, or the executives who are handed bonuses for creating fake books by parking money overseas to dodge taxes?The pro's premises and conclusion are nonsense.
Should Immigrants pay a fee percentage, on any money sent out of this country.

immigrants have long looked at America as a country where they could come and seek work to better themselves and their families. But for immigrants to only benefit themselves at the expense of the citizens who have to provide benefits to them such as schooling, housing, law enforcement, medical, is a cost that immigrants should contribute to assist in paying for that they take advantage of. There is a cost levied on Americans who wish to live here , shouldn't those who come across our borders also pay for that privilege as well.
Organic consumption in the U.K.

Since my opponent did not provide the definition of organic, I will go ahead:Organic: Affecting the structure of an organism [1]Ok then, who would want something organic over this: TACOS!I mean look at it! It's loaded! And Chuck Norris approves tacos too!"But I...""No, because eating tacos approved by Chuck Norris makes you a..." Champion!Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Death Penalty

“As for the innocents, The death penalty should be used in no question scenarios” As I have specified in round 1, Pro’s position in this debate is to show that the death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA is justified and should continue to be applied as it currently is, Therefore, Pro’s argument that the death penalty should only be used in no question scenarios is irrelevant in this debate as he has to defend the application of the death penalty in the USA where, as I have shown in round 2, One innocent person is killed for every 24 guilty people. Thus, My main conclusion that “the death penalty does not just punish those that some might argue deserve it but also innocent people that most certainly do not deserve it and, Therefore, The death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA should not be allowed” from round 2 remains uncontested. Furthermore, Pro’s argument that human dignity should only be applied to non-criminals is as Bertrand Russell has called it “merely a form of cruelty” (see quote in round 2) and Pro has so far failed to explain what advantage punishing criminals with the death penalty has compared to a sentence of life in prison where the criminals can, For example, Be questioned at a later point, Studied for psychological research or possibly be exonerated if they are innocent at some point of time. Additionally, I should like to end this round with a famous quote that is often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. ” [1] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References:Quoteinvestigator. Com. (2018). An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind – Quote Investigator. [online] Available at: https://quoteinvestigator. Com/2010/12/27/eye-for-eye-blind/ [Accessed 20 Aug. 2018].