BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The gender wage gap is justified.

1. Provide specific evidence. I'll provide my links to my arguments, You provide yours. I can't tell if your evidence is justified if you only give me the name of the company. 2. Don't tell me that in the same workplace is "rubbish, " and don't provide evidence! It proves you wrong. 3. People claim these according to workforce, Area, And country. You can't specifically say that, "oh there is always this amount on the dollar. " Its impossible, Especially considering that economy changes by the day, And so will pay wages as well. I proved in my last debate that women are employed (about) the same amount in many jobs [3], And many of these are an even higher median pay than most! The problem lies not with what jobs women work, But how the women are payed! If a woman was works the same job, It relies on the workforce to find the median pay of both. That's what they do, And I have evidence to prove it. According to aauw. Org [1], It shows that women in the same workforce are paid less than men, And states that women earn $65, 237 compared to a man's earnings of $100, 575. There is physical evidence that women earn less for the same job. It also shows, According to chron. Com [4], That women earn less for the same job. Not only this, But according to dol. Gov, It shows that women earning median wages at full time, Comparing to men's [2], Continues on the trend that they. . . . Earn less. The study shows how much women earn compared to men, And show that even when women have less that a High School Diploma, And all throughout different degrees, They continue to earn less than men. And, There is no specific claim to, "x cents on the dollar. " This is because: 1. Economy is constantly changing. 2. Certain states have different gaps, Which is proven. [1] 3. This is also according to job. Finally, I don't believe that the patriarchy is forcing women not to work at higher paying jobs. I think that the women already working there don't earn as much. Don't put words into my mouth. Evidence: [4] https://work. Chron. Com/male-vs-female-statistics-workplace-america-23880. Html [3] https://www. Dol. Gov/wb/stats/ten_occ_low_wm_earn_rgen_wagegap_14_wmwe_ft_2_txt. Htm [2] https://www. Dol. Gov/wb/stats/women_to_men_earn_ratios_wagegap_edu_at_2_txt. Htm [1] https://www. Aauw. Org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
The gender wage gap is justified.

Hey, Thanks for agreeing to the debate. The observed wage gap is based on comparing the average income of men to the average income of women without considering any variables. Sometimes, When the wage gap is brought, Feminists say that women get paid less for the same jobs. That's rubbish. Asking women why they get paid less than men is like asking men why they are more likely to die in the workplace than women. It's because men and women tend to work DIFFERENT jobs. And just as some jobs are more dangerous than others, Some jobs pay more than others. And since men tend to work in higher paying jobs such as STEM fields, Men tend to earn more money and even if you are comparing men and women working in the SAME jobs, There are things which factor into why men get paid more. Such as the fact that men are more likely to work overtime, Are more likely to ask for raises or promotions, Are less likely to take vacations(Research by Springhill Suites), Are more competitive than women(National Bureau of Economic Research), Are more likely to take risks(The Telegraph), Prioritize earnings more than women, Retire at a later age(Huffington post). With all this taken into consideration, It's no wonder that men get paid more If companies could actually get away by paying women less, Don't you think they would hire nothing but women to save money? Do you honestly think that corporations are such boys' clubs that giving advantages to men is more important to them than their profits and shareholder interests? Also, The fact that there are less women than men in STEM fields has nothing to do with discrimination. In fact, A joint study conducted by Cornell University and the University of Michigan found that there is a 2:1 preference for woman applicants in STEM fields over equally qualified men. So the reason there are so few women in STEM fields is that there are few women who are interested in pursuing careers in STEM fields. And if you want to earn more money in STEM fields, Then you shouldn't waste your parents' money in an useless degree like gender studies. And if you think that the patriarchy is DELIBERATELY forcing women not to work at higher paying jobs like STEM fields, Explain why the patriarchy isn't stopping women from dominating certain fields such as veterinary fields(Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges), Medicine, Psychology, Pharmacology and biology according to the same source. Furthermore, Some people claim 77 cents to a dollar, While some claim 68 cents and yet others claim 72 cents. Which one does someone believe? Also, Men pay more in car insurance than women and also pay more income tax than women out of proportion to the "wage gap". So, It balances it out.
The gender wage gap is justified.

When people talk about the wage gap, It doesn't mean that they mean median pay for all jobs in total, They mean that there is a wage gap between specific jobs. People already know what you said, So this is commonly used between workforces. And, According to Reuter's, Women earn 1/2 the annual income between men. You can't explain or include evidence saying that Men always have jobs that earn twice as much as women, Do you? Probably not. Including this, Dol. Gov includes evidence saying: 74% of women are Human Resources managers (106, 910 median pay) 46% are Food managers (48, 690 median pay) 45% are marketing and Sales managers (81, 078 median pay) This already is proof that women earn half. If there are about as many women and men, Then there is no reason to say the gender wage gap is justified. Again, Most wage gaps are calculated across workforces, And not overall.
National Security Ought to be Valued Above Freedom of Press

I see Pro has tried to answer my points; however I have to say that the arguments appear weak to say the least. The press is in the business of obtaining private information, this is what they do and they are very good at it. The whole idea of a free press is to have that accountability in place so the American public knows when the government is trying to do something that is not in their best interest. Is it ok for the United States to go to war without the consent of congress? It states clearly in the constitution that this is not the case, and war must be voted on and approved by the congress of the United States (Article one Section Eight of the United States Constitution). Therefore, indirectly it is the right of the people to know when congress is declaring war so that they can protest it if they feel it is unwarranted. The press is a direct pipeline to the people in regards to current events that are happening… If the press is not informed (Or does not find out) that America is attacking someone (Say for the sake of argument Syria) then congress would not be held accountable for this if the reason for going to war was not just. The freedom of press is there to insure against the possible tyranny of government and is necessary, even if the potential security of the nation is in jeopardy. Now, Pros assertions as to the court case is interesting because they assert that security should be valued over free press, and implies in their opening statements that the press should be limited in this regard to ensure the security of the nation is not compromised. I would then like to ask Pro where we should draw the line. As I stated, anything in the right context can be construed as a security threat and so it would be a very slippery slope indeed to allow this type of censure of the press to gain some security. As to the statement of whether I would like to see terrorist acts take place against the American people and her interests is quite frankly irrelevant. Of course I would not like to see ANY attacks happen against us or our allies, but this does not negate the need for a free press or the danger that limiting this right would cause. There is a saying that says power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without the accountability of the press the government would be free to do what it wanted with little scrutiny at all, and things such as the NSA monitoring all of our communications (Emails, phone calls, this debate, your conversations with your mother at the local Starbucks) would be allowed to go unchecked and have no accountability for the gross invasion of privacy this entails. The freedom of the press should not be limited any more than it already is, and the security of the nation is not an exception to this.
National Security Ought to be Valued Above Freedom of Press

"What if the state had the right to censor the press when it wanted; what would happen? " What would happen? The press would attain private information that would harm the country. That is what would happen. Because when something is pubished, people in the United States see it, but so does the "enemy". Recently, Obama was talking about launching an attack on Syria. Syrian government obviously heard of the planned attack and threatened the US. Syria was prepared, and would have the advantage because their military forces would not have to travel around the world. The government should have stepped in and stopped the press from publishing ALL the information. Yes, the American people have the right to know what our government is planning, but not all of it should be spread to the world. "What the pro does not realize is that anything, in the right context could be constructed as a security breech. " As I stated before, in the court case, NYT vs US, the Supreme Court made it very clear that the plaintiff must present accurate data that shows that, if the paticular topic was reported on, there would be immident danger. "Now, pro brings up terrorism as a defense and asks, and I paraphrase "Should we not make it so that the security of the nation is paramount to freedom of the press? I mean after all, someone might leak something that a terrorist reads and then uses it against us. " To this I say, you are right, this is a very real threat, but it is not a reason for us to give up our most basic rights, just so we can have some security. " Is my opponent implying that they would rather see terrorists attacking the American people and their allies, than have national security. National security was put into action for a reason: to keep the citizen of the Untied States safe. Yes, we will continue to have press systems, but the press should not be allowed to pubish content that provokes life vs death! National security is a very important aspect of the world. The United States may find it beneficial to take it more seriously. I believe that I have made my point very clear in that national security protects the lives of many, and that the first amendment acutually ENCOURAGES national security.
National Security Ought to be Valued Above Freedom of Press

First, I would like to graciously accept my esteemed opponents challenge and wish him good luck in this debate. I would like to start off with a quote from a well-known person in history… Many of you may know him by the name of Adolph Hitler, leader of the German Workers’ Party and one of the greatest leaders of all time, and the most psychopathic. He said: “Let me control the text books and I will control the state” (1) These words, while not directly related to the topic of the debate carry some dire implications indeed… What if the state had the right to censor the press when it wanted; what would happen? Well we only need look as far as North Korea to see the damaging effects of government run media and why this would be bad. The first amendment was put in place to keep government out of the business of the press so that it would have accountability for its actions since the one good thing about the media is its ability sniff out secrets. Now, how does this relate to National Security? Well some would say that the government has a right to some secrecy since the movement of troops and the various new weapons we are testing should remain secret, and for the most part I would agree. However, what pro does not realize is that anything, in the right context could be construed as a national security breech, hence the supreme court’s ruling on the subject that it must be an imminent threat to national security to limit the right of free press. We have what’s called the Freedom of Information act as well which grants the ability of Americans to know what their politicians are up to, within reason and this is so that people who run for office are held accountable for the shady actions they do and goes even further to enshrine the concept of the press holding our elected officials accountable for their actions. Now, pro brings up terrorism as a defense and asks, and I paraphrase “Should we not make it so that the security of the nation is paramount to freedom of the press? I mean after all, someone might leak something that a terrorist reads and then uses it against us.” To this I say, you are right, this is a very real threat, but it is not a reason for us to give up our most basic rights, just so we can have some security. It was Benjamin Franklin who once said: ““They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (2) If we allow the threat of terrorism to cow us into accepting limits on essential liberty such as freedom of the press then we doom ourselves to the same outcome when another such situation comes along and we have established a precedent of giving up liberty for security. While I agree that Journalists should have the good sense to not harm the nation’s security for a story, it is there right to do so, so long as it does not pose a direct threat to the security of the nation, and to try to limit this is to invite despotism and censure of our most basic right of all, the freedom of the press. (1) http://www.hyperhistory.net... (2) http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com...
should john cena be said in schools

john cenaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Vampire Diaries is better than Twilight

Pro makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and in some cases, some strange ones. Pro claims no one drinks blood in Twilight. This is false. If Pro means that the vampires in Twilight attempt not to drink human blood, Pro is correct. But Pro is also missing the fact that some of the vampires in Vampire Diaries also try not to drink human blood. Either way, this is besides the point. Whether the vampires drink human blood or not has nothing to do with whether Twilight or Vampire Diaries is better. Pro claims Elena is stronger than Bella because she isn't afraid to stand up to Damon. Bella has no problems standing up to Edward and Jacob, either, and forcing them to respect her desires and body. Pro claims Elena has impulses and does things without questioning her actions. This sounds like the stereotypical representation of girls - unable to think rationally. Bella, on the other hand, thinks through things before she makes a move. This makes her more rational, and in that sense, Bella offers a critique of the stereotypical representation of women as irrational and impulsive. Vampire Diaries offers no such critique. Pro's own arguments provide evidence taht Twilight has greater cultural significance as well as a better message for women who seek equality with men. Pro claims Elena is better because she cares more about her friends than herself. I don't see how that makes Vampire Diaries any better than Twilight. Pro's arguments boil down to saying Bella is a better character than Elena, so therefore Vampire Diaries is better. This is a very one-dimensional approach to evaluating the two series. Twilight has much more to do than just with whether you like a certain character or not. It provides entertainment through the narrative, but it also provides thematic complexity. This is what makes Twilight a masterpiece, not whether you subjectively like a character or not. You can see Round 2 for my arguments explaining why Twilight is great. Pro has yet to address any of those arguments.
Vampire Diaries is better than Twilight

I completely disagree. Twilight is anything but a masterpiece. It's cheesy and a stupid way of portraying the nature of vampires. Vampires are supposed to drink blood. There is like NO drinking blood except for at the end of that movie. Vampire Diaries clearly shows the characteristics of vampires and there is drinking blood in like EVERY EPISODE. Another point Con said was that Bella is stronger than Elena. Bella doesn't ever make her own choices. Elena actually makes most of her own choices whereas Bella goes to Jacob or Edward to help her solve her issues. She's not confident at all. Elena isn't ever afraid to slap Damon and isn't scared of him either. I mean, Bella does slap Jacob in Breaking Dawn part 1, but Elena insults and hurts Damon a lot more and isn't afraid to. Bella is very hesitant. She's has to think through things before she makes a move. Elena just has impulse and does things without questioning her actions. She's so much better than Bella. Bella is too self absorbed. Elena cares more about keeping her friends safe than her own life being at risk.
Vampire Diaries is better than Twilight

Pro claims Vampire Diaries values eternal life, but if that is the case, why are Stefan and Damon envious of the fact that Elena is human? And why do they put so much effort into finding the cure to make Elena human again? It is quite clear that Vampire Diaries does not value eternal life. On the contrary, it values human life. The problem with the Vampire Diaries is that it is very superficial in its approach to the vampire/human dichotomy, always making human life look superior to eternal life by casting vampires who like being a vampire as evildoers. Twilight is much more complex and multi-dimensional in that regard. Pro claims Elena is a fully developed character because she goes from being a weakling to a strong vampire. I disagree. When Elena becomes a vampire, she is still scared to kill. When she finally kills for the first time, she is plagued by guilt. She always relies on others to kill for her, and to protect her, hence making her no stronger than Bella. Pro claims Elena makes her own decisions. So does Bella. Bella, in fact, chooses the Cullen family of her own volition, and chooses eternal life, and the stability and family that comes with eternal life. She chooses marriage, and motherhood. These are some of life's most difficult decisions, decisions that Elena rarely if ever even contemplates. Elena doesn't choose to become a vampire, it is thrust upon her. Elena is a flat character. Her motivations are clear. There is little complexity to her thought process. Anyway, that's all of Pro's arguments from R3. Pro also drops the vast majority of my case so I'll assume that's a concession of the major points I make. Twilight is a masterpiece on par with great works of art. Vampire Diaries is a fun show to watch but it simply does not offer the same depth, appeal, or cultural significance that Twilight has.
Vampire Diaries is better than Twilight

Oh so you're saying that Vampire Diaries doesn't recognize the value of eternal life? Yes it does. Stefan and Damon made it very clear that they were envious of Elena getting to be human because they didn't get that choice. They were forced to become vampires. There are many scenes throughout the series that show these moments of envy. Now when you imply that Vampire Diaries doesn't fully develop its characters, I completely disagree with you. Elena went from a weakling in Season 1 to a strong, brave warrior vampire in Season 4. She has come a long way for someone who's lost as many loved ones as her. With each episode, I saw her manage her own problems, and make her own choices. She doesn't let the Salvatores make decisions for her any longer.
Vampire Diaries is better than Twilight

The female protagonist, Elena (Nina Dobrev), is extremely capable of making her own decisions in order to protect her family and friends. She"s also reasonably intelligent, unlike Bella from Twilight. The plot of Vampire Diaries is a lot more complex; it is multi-dimensional and speaks of many different stories rather than the typical Bella and Edward one in Twilight. Twilight is not as heavy on murder than Vampire Diaries which makes TVD more enjoyable to watch. Twilight is way too uplifting and wishy washy all over the place whereas TVD is hard core to the point. Elena is MUCH more interesting than blatant Bella Swan. All Bella does is whine and want to be saved and is a total weakling. Vampire Diaries always has new characters appearing throughout each season. Twilight has the SAME character appearing in each movie. Vampire Diaries also has a variety of interesting story lines weaved into it while Twilight only has one ongoing storyline. Also there are a lot more different relationships going on in TVD which also makes for a more interesting show than Twilight does. http://blogs.tribune.com.pk...
911 was an inside job (2)

Maybe you can answer the unanswered questions that my previous opponent has failed to answer before he suddenly had to leave town on important business. lol 1. President Bush's statements both contradict and mimic some of the evidence. "Let's roll" Which was a phrase supposedly stated by the passenger Todd Beamer before they attacked the 'so called terrorists' on flight 93. Note - The same phase used by George Bush when he announced that America was going to war with Iraq. 2. "we can't breathe due to mace" This comment by Betty Ong doesn't make sense. If she is talking on a cell phone, she is breathing. "Cool, where is it?" The reaction of technician Shelly Watson - on hearing about the 'real world' hijacking. This doesn't sound like a qualified and trained military officer to me. It sounds more like a 10 year old on-line gamer who has found a new game to play. 3. How did the hijackers know how to turn off the transponders? Note -They were only trained to operate small propeller planes which don't normally have transponders. 4. Flight 93 - The distribution of plane pieces is inconsistent with the flight recorder information. According to the flight recorder the plane was forced down by the hi-jackers. The evidence contradicts this information. Pieces of the plane were found over an area of 2 kilometres which suggests that the plane was shot down while in the air. http://stj911.org...... 5. The four planes crashes should have resulted in the recovery of 8 black boxes. Note - Black boxes are indestructible. No amount of fire or violence of impact would be enough to destroy a black box. Thus, the missing black boxes must have been purposely removed by the government agents. http://www.counterpunch.org...... http://www.rense.com......