BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US needs to abolish the Federal Reserve.

There are many reasons why the U.S. needs the Federal Reserve Bank, but I will open with these Five: 1) Bank functionality: The Federal Reserve is the "bankers bank"; when a person deposits money into the bank in a checking account, the vast majority of that money does not stay there. It either goes out via loans, vault cash, or, and most importantly, to a reserve account at the Federal bank. This account is protected by the Federal Reserve, insuring that a bank robbery would not destroy a banks cash. It protects Americans and their banks. 2) Check Clearing: the Federal Reserve bank clears all of the checks in America. When Suzie Q, who has an account at Bank of America, writes a check to Johnny Joe, who has an account at Washington Mutual, the banks do not argue with each other for the cash. Rather, the check is submitted to a Federal Reserve District Bank. The Federal reserve then withdraws the money from Bank of America's account there and deposits it in Washington Mutual' s account. This is an essential part of a functioning bank. 3) Issuing Paper Currency: The federal reserve does not print money, but it does issue currency to banks. For example, during the Christmas season, many people make larger than normal cash withdrawals. Banks need to replenish their vault cash, so they contact the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve then issues the bank cash while subtracting the amount of issued cash from their account. This insures banks have the vault cash they need while at the same time not acquiring any more currency than they already have. 4) The Governments Banker: Our government collects and spends an enormous amount of money. Like an individual, the government requires a checking account to do this. The Federal Reserve acts as the primary checking account holder, its banker. If the Federal Reserve were not in place, a myriad of private banks would be required for the governments checking accounts. 5) Control the money supply: our government has two ways to stimulate or constrict our economy, fiscal policy, handled by the Congress and Executive, and monetary policy, handled by the Federal Reserve. Through controlling the supply of money through a variety of operations, not just the Discount Rate, the Federal Reserve is able to quickly act in economic crisis, much quicker than the Congress or the Executive. It also has the added advantage of being an appointed body in that it is solely responsible for low inflation and sustained economic growth, and not trying to campaign for re-election every few years. I would ask my opponent to review this information and provide realistic alternatives to banking and government given the essential, efficient and effective nature of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Pornography is not degrading to women

The idea that ONLY women are degraded by porn is incorrect. I have argued how porn degrades women, but porn is degrading for men as well. Not on the same level, no, but men in porn are usually reduced to well endowed skinheads with permaboners. This is not an accurate depiction of men in general, or male sexuality. I think that men being more submissive would not be degrading. A man letting the woman take control runs against stereotypes, and shows he is confident in his sexuality. Do women experience pain during sex in real life? It shouldn't happen when sex is done properly (excluding fetishes), but yes, it does happen. Does this make it right to film exaggerations of this pain for male pleasure? I don't think so. Also, you keep bringing up the point that if a woman agrees to do porn, it isn't degrading. Why? Just because she signs the waiver doesn't stop the video from being degrading. It still perpetuates the stereotype that women are objects of sexual pleasure for men, not people equal to men. I'll close with my answer to your question. Are people who watch porn bad? To add context, I want it made clear that I have watched porn ever since I was a teen and still do to this day. I don't think the concept of watching porn is bad. People who don't have regular sex still need an outlet for their natural urges. Porn should not be banned or censored from the internet. We want to watch porn, maybe we even need it. But we need better porn. We need porn that better represents real human sex, and depicts people as people, and not playthings. We need porn that shows that men and women are equal. They have different bodies, and they have different desires, and they experience sex in different ways, and thats a good thing! Sex is great! We shouldn't be ashamed of it. So, in conclusion, no, people who watch porn are not bad people. But many of the people who make porn are. It is a rough industry with very lax standards that chews young, usually emotionally damaged and/or abused women up and spits them back out. Yes, they agree to get behind the camera. But does that make it any less degrading? Absolutely not.
Pornography is not degrading to women

'The disproportionate amount of female submissive porn doesn't accurately reflect real life.' I hope you don't think that the solution for this would be that men become more submissive because that would be degrading to men if following your theory. Porn movies are not a love story, so dialogues don't need to be sophisticated or show certain specific things. I understand that some porn videos include the idea of women experiencing pain or being punished or so, and I agree that we could say it represents male fantasies, however, not all videos are like this and even if there are such videos, since the woman accepts to be 'abused' , then 'degrading to women' is a wrong term. Saying that girls are in pain from too large penises is exaggerated. This can occur in real life since women who are still virgin will have some pain. We need to understand that everything can be malformed, if we say pornography is degrading to women because of the videos showing men abusing them, we can also say it's degrading to men because it shows that they have no interesting sexual aspect for women to appreciate. I also would like to ask a question, do you consider people who watch porn, 'bad' or 'evil' ?
Pornography is not degrading to women

Some positions have to be submissive: Absolutely agreed. The problem here is the unbalanced focus. The amount of porn that shows men being submissive to a woman a very small niche. In fact you probably won't come across it at all without specifically looking for it. The great imbalance in submissiveness is the issue. Women are submissive in real life: Yeah, sometimes. Some women enjoy being submissive, others like being assertive. Most like to switch it up from time to time to experience both. The disproportionate amount of female submissive porn doesn't accurately reflect real life. The purpose of porn is not to show personality or feelings: EXACTLY! By taking away a woman's personality or feelings, you are degrading her! Porn movies have dialogue, so why waste it on lines like "Did someone order their pizza with...extra sausage?" when they could build interesting characters. Making the porn stars into characters we can empathize with, the sex becomes more than just a girl on a set a penis in the anus, it becomes a much more intimate, erotic experience. Saying that women are humiliated [in porn] is wrong: Again, in a lot of porn movies, women are frequently shown in pain, having sex with several men, having sex with girls to please a man, being verbally abused by male costars, and more. Is this true of all porn? No, and it is impossible to put an exact figure on what percentage of porn clips of the internet contain women being humiliated. But, *for science* I looked at the front page of a website *which I heard about from an acquaintance and have never visited before* called Pornhub. There were 36 videos featured on the front page. Of those, 17 videos are what I would consider degrading to women. The reasons? A revenge video (illegal), two three somes that the girls were coerced into (there were other three somes that looked consensual, I didn't count them), one with the word "beaten" in the title, forcible deep throating, girls paid to have sex with significantly older men, a doctor abusing his position of power with a patient, and a teacher abusing his position of power with a student, a girl blowing a landlord for rent, and several girls in pain from penises that are too large, too forcefully inserted, or otherwise mishandled. I would argue that stripping the emotional, personal, and romantic connections from sex makes porn NOT about human's true sexual nature, but male fantasies about it.
Pornography is not degrading to women

Considering how the body works and how sex is made, we must understand that some cases and positions have to be submissive. However, we must understand that if a women is on her knees or on four legs, these are not positions only used in porn videos, they can be practised in real life sex. Considering that men must have an easy access between the women's legs so he can enter his penis into the vagina, we must accept that some positions have to be taken. The purpose of porn is not to show personality or feelings but only the concept or eroticism. Saying that women are humiliated is wrong. When a men ejaculates on a women it is not necessarily degrading since it is just another layer of excitement to add in the sexual intercourse. Also, being slapped during sex is not the same as being slapped like during a fight, it can excite the women even more. We must keep in mind that porn is not about love, but human's sexual nature and behaviour.
Pornography is not degrading to women

A few clarifications. I did not call porn sexual abuse. I said porn often includes acts of sexual abuse, which a quick look at frequently searched categories will verify. Anal sex and doggy style are two different things; one is penetration in the anus, and the other is penetrating a woman from behind. I also did not say porn is or should be a guide to real sex, but that it is often misinterpreted by impressionable youth. Your statement "Suggestions of men being superior to women are never made in pornography," is false. One cannot say something NEVER happens in pornography, as there are many types, subjects, genres, and influences on porn. A savvy web browser can find almost any kind of porn (see rule 34), which means that any blanket statement made about all of porn is never going to apply. So, let's amend your statement to read "Suggestions of men being superior to women are rarely made in pornography". I disagree with this statement. -In porn, men are usually filmed in an angle of power over the woman. She is usually lower than he is, either on her knees, on all fours, or on her back. All submissive positions. -Women in porn are rarely depicted to have any personality, thoughts, feelings, or desires, (other than PENIS!) -Women are often depicted in humiliating positions, such as being ejaculated on, being choked, being restrained, being slapped or punished. -All of the above makes women appear to be flat, one dimensional objects instead of rounded individuals, which is degradation. One of your arguments is that since women choose to be in porn, it is not degrading. I have two objections to that. One, many women are forced into the porn industry by either direct means (controlling boyfriend, human trafficking) or indirect (dire financial circumstances, poor upbringing). However, let's ignore that for a moment and look at women who choose freely to do porn. Some women enjoy doing porn. Some women who don't do porn enjoy many of the things depicted in porn in real life. This is not wrong, people can do what they want with their bodies. However, the issue here is whether it is degrading. A woman being submissive to a man is degrading herself; she is lowering her stature in relation to his. Even if she enjoys it, the message it sends is a different one. Now we seem to disagree on the foreplay issue. I see the foreplay in porn as sterile, unrealistic, and mechanical. I do not think it reflects what pleases women. I also maintain that while most porn includes kissing, touching and caressing, it certainly doesn't focus on them. They are thrown in as obligations before getting to the pounding, what porn directors think everyone wants to see. There is no laughter, tender dialogue, or emotional connections established in porn. This separates it from real sex, however I am willing to say this is simply a matter of taste. Back to you!
Pornography is not degrading to women

I will agree with the fact that more men then women watch porn, however, a lot of women do watch and we must keep that in mind. You said: 'There is very little foreplay in porn, and very little touching, kissing, caressing, and other intimate moments.' I completely disagree with this because most of porn videos include kissing, touching and caressing. Before the sexual intercourse,more precisely before the penis enters the vagina, we always see men caressing the women's breasts, fingering and licking the vagina which do not degrade women but rather gives them pleasure and is an act of care. Women also caress testicles, and have oral sex. In most cases , after the men has given the women oral sex. Suggestions of men being superior to women are never made in pornography. Pornography is not a guide to real sex, young men will understand that some things are not always as they seem. You can't call porn sexual abuse, since women in videos accept to have sex, even if it may look hostile. Some of women like to have anal sex, which includes the 'doggy-style' position, which people think is wrong and degrading to women. But since they choose to, it is absolutely fine.
Pornography is not degrading to women

Thank you. Just for the record I am opposed to any form of censorship. For the purposes of this debate, when I say "pornography", I will be referring to mainstream American pornography. This is because the concept of porn, as well as the more artistic style of European porn, are distinctly different. - The majority of porn is filmed and viewed by men. - Because of this, porn largely reflects male fantasies about sex. - Many of these fantasies include acts that degrade women, including physical, verbal, and even sexual abuse. - Depictions of degrading fantasies are, by definition, degrading. - There is very little foreplay in porn, and very little touching, kissing, caressing, and other intimate moments. - Women generally need the above mentioned things to be satisfied when having sex - The exclusion of female pleasuring acts in porn is degrading, as it suggests their pleasure is not as important as the man's. - Suggesting men are superior to women is degrading. - Most men watch porn with the understanding that porn is a fantasy and does not reflect how most women want to be treated. - However, a minority of men, especially younger men and teens without the same life experience, will inevitably see porn as a guide to real sex. - Using porn, which consists of male fantasies, as a guide to sex can create unrealistic expectations and hurt personal relations. I've listed three arguments above. I tried to be as clear as possible, turning the floor over to you!
Solarman's Neo-con Republican picks (Romney McCain Bush) hurt our country through supporting the war

Essentially you have put forth a litany of liberal ideas the debate is on the WAR, however the bottom line is that ISLAM is AT WAR with US period. We need to be on the offense, and take out the enemy the battleground is the middle east and asia, and we need to stay on offense, not defense, as we did under the moral coward and corrupt idiot Clinton In terms of your paranoia about "intrusion into our personal lives" what are you trying to hide? do you not think we should monitor KNOWN TERRORISTS conversations? Pelosi et al WONT bring it up for a vote EVEN THOUGH it would pass immieditely WHY? becuase the TRIAL LAWYERS WANT TO SUE THE TELECOM companies the liberals are paranoid as well about hiding their penchant for sending child porn- like Bernie Ward - look it up more later gotta go for now
Solarman's Neo-con Republican picks (Romney McCain Bush) hurt our country through supporting the war

I have been waiting to debate the great solarman for a long time and I have decided to make my move. Solarman supports the neo-conservatives, which are nothing more than confused republicans that are anything BUT conservative. They are not conservative on social policy. Conservatism would logically mean to keep the government OUT of people's lives. Bush, the Huckster, Romney, and McCain are not socially conservative. They support the War on Drugs, which is a billion dollar a week waste of capital that does anything BUT stay out of people's lives, and does anything BUT keep the government small and avoid wasteful spending. The WoD does NOT do a DAMN thing good for our country. They support the War on Terror, which is extremely expensive and wasteful and does not reduce terrorism abroad or at home. 9/11 was an isolated incident and the only thing that helped keep those attacks from happening again was increasing our airline security AT HOME. Conservatism would logically dictate that keeping the military at home would be the sound approach, not spreading them around the world in an extremely expensive and wasteful manner. This is actually a liberal way to manage the military. We should keep our military at home where they can defend us more effectively. Let's get out of Iraq and let them have their civil war, and stop playing nanny of the middle east while our economy crashes and our spending and borrowing for this waste of resources skyrockets. Only a liberal would want to perpetuate this costly conflict any longer. You, Solarman, are a confused neoconservative liberal. I know that one hurt... These politicians support the USA Patriot act, which is very liberal. No true conservative would pry apart our civil liberties like this or do damage to habeus corpus. They support the anti-abortion movement, and try to get right in there with women in the hospital and tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies. How is this conservative? Why don't you look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary so maybe you can get a grasp on your ideological tendency! These politicians want to perpetuate this war in Iraq forever. Literally. Ask McCain how long he wants to stay in Iraq. What did he say... 50 to a hundred years if necessary? This is conservatism? Has the country gone mad? Conservatism means to keep the government small and control spending. These politicians that Solarman supports support out of control liberal spending, invasion of privacy and unprecedented control of people's lives by the government, and damage to our constitution.
Pikachu was a good pokemon

I negate the resolution "Pikachu was a good pokemon." As my opponent has not defined "good", I will do so: Good - of high quality; excellent. [1] Pikachu neither was nor is good, as it lacks combat strength. I cannot fully articulate this point due to the character limit (a mere 750 characters), but one need only peruse the Pokedex [2] to see that Pikachu's [3] stats and movepool are poor compared to many other pokemon. Due to its lack of combat strength, Pikachu neither was nor is a good pokemon. In response to my opponent's argument, cuteness is subjective and does not indicate quality or excellence. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://serebii.net... [3] http://serebii.net...
Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death First we have well established information that stoning was commanded by God. We even have Jesus himself seemingly stating that it was in fact God who ordained it. 'Matthew 15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don"t wash their hands before they eat!" 3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother"[a] and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' 'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)' ----- But later, we have Jesus saying not to necessarily stone someone who the Law of Moses says should be stoned. John 8:6"76 This they said fto test him, gthat they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, h"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." it could be argued, that Jesus only clarifying the teaching.... that it is the Law to stone people, but only those who are without sin must cast the first stone. The problem, though, is that this is stretching what is actually occurring in the texts. the texts clearly say the woman should be put to death. both the old testament and Jesus himself at one point seemed to say that was the rule, the Law. But Jesus is not going along with that, any more. it could be argued that it would no longer be necessary to put someone to death, after Jesus was put to death himself, by virtue of his work being applied to those sinners put to death. but Jesus was not yet crucified when he said those things. so shouldn't the Law of Moses been applicable? Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not to detract from it. but here, we see what seems to be him detracting from it.
Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

Rebuttals"there was no requirement that those stoning be sinless."All Old Testament sins required either punishment or sacrifice. All of the woman's accusers should either have been punished for sins they committed, or forgiven of their sins by offering the appropriate sacrifices. The apparently guilty consciences of everyone present shows that they must have had unconfessed, unforgiven sin. Not even one of the accusers could say that they were caught up on their punishments and sacrifices, and therefore "sinless" in the eyes of the law."Jesus seemed to be limiting who should stone."This statement misses the point. Jesus was not delivering a sermon to the general population on how stonings ought to be performed. He was speaking to a specific crowd of people that he knew, or at least guessed, were living in unconfessed, unpardoned sin. His purpose in suggesting who should throw the first stone was not a commentary on the law, but a condemnation of the hypocricy of the Pharisees.Notice that he did not say, "Let he who is without sin cast stones." He specifically used the adjective, "first": "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This would imply that he had no problem with sinful people casting any number of stones after the first, disproving the notion that he was saying that only sinless people should perform stonings. Obviously he had another purpose here, the most obvious of which seems to be shaming the Pharisees, whom he had a history of shaming. His secondary purpose may have been rescuing the woman, but it most certainly was secondary, as the Pharisees could have either ignored Jesus and stoned her anyway, or heeded his suggestion, claimed to be up-to-date on their sacrifices, and stoned her."...he may have contradicted the law, but we can also give him benefit of the doubt."I believe such benefit is the most plausible response, considering my points given here. ConclusionJesus was not contradicting the law, nor suggesting that it should not be followed. He was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who felt so guilty that they abandoned their mission to stone the adulteress.Thank you for an interesting debate. I wish everyone a happy July 4th.