BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men and Women Are Equal

My first point is on biology. Different sexes evolved in animals because having two sets of genes to inherit was more advantageous for the offspring. This accounts for the few physical differences in the sexes. However, if binary gender sexual reproduction created other differences, such as a lower tolerance for pain in one sex than in another, that would not be advantageous and natural selection would make short work of such a species. Evolution also mandated that the sexes be as similar as possible. To give an example: this is why both sexes have nipples, but only one makes use of them. This contradicts the misconception that women are superior caregivers. When the human race first evolved, life spans were short. Mothers did not always survive to raise their child, and often a male member of the group would have to raise it. The parental instincts existed in both sexes, so that children had a better chance of survival. My second point is mental development. There exists no difference between mental development or natural talent based only on sex. Most large differences in skills come from nurture and nature (i.e. the conditions one was brought up in) instead of biology. The fact that men and women appear to have different natural skillsets can be explained by this fact. Society arbitrarily places different expectations on the two, and as such they tend to develop different skills because of this external influence.
Men and Women Are Equal

How did I know as soon as I saw your response to my statement on that poll that you'd challenge me to this? thanks for the challenge, I appreciate it - I'd prefer a "formal" debate over an argument on a poll topic. I agree to the terms and conditions, sign my life away. For clarity, I'll give the definition of equality from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, as you wish. Equality - The quality or state of being equal [1] Equal - Of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another [2] Thanks for challenging me to this debate, good luck to you too! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Men and Women Are Equal

My opponent made statements on this topic that I feel deserve a full debate. First round is for acceptance. I will be taking the pro position in this topic, and as such will argue that men and women are equal. My opponent, should he accept, must take the con position and argue that men and women are not equal. A few rules for this debate: -No arguments from sexism or other forms of bigotry. For example: "This argument my opponent has made is biased because he is a bigot." would not be OK. However, "This argument my opponent has made is biased because [Reason other than 'he is a bigot']." would be OK. -No begging the question, nor circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is bad because it makes your argument weaker. Circular reasoning makes your argument weaker because it is bad. -Semantic arguments are frowned upon. Merriam Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) English definitions will be used in this debate. If a definition other than Merriam-Webster's is used, that definition should be justified by the arguer and its source should be properly cited. Good luck.
Men and Women Are Equal

Unfortunately we don't have much of a final round, so I'll sum up my arguments quickly here. Absolute equality is achieved when all aspects of two subjects are equivalent. A man and woman can appear to be equal at first, both sharing many similar or even equal traits, much like different coloured pens, however when we delve deeper into the separate traits and characteristics, we find that it's very hard for two things to be absolutely equal. Take my pen example, once again. Two pens, a green one and red one (because it's almost Christmas, #yoloswag420), and we study them. They are both pens, they are both used for writing, with the same amount of ink, same shape and weight, and can be used for the same things, however they both aren't equally red or equally green. So back to men and women - they can achieve very similar accomplishments, they can think relatively the same, however biologically, they are very different. This fact alone is enough to say men and women are not equal. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs... they don't equally produce sperm or equally produce eggs. I won't get into the intelligence parts of this again. Thanks for a good debate, hopefully we'll be able to have a similar one in the future!
Sweatshops

First of all, many sweatshops are coercive in nature. People work in them, often under abusive conditions [1], because they have no place else to turn to. Secondly, sweatshops help create a cycle of poverty and ignorance that prevents people from advancing themselves. If we as a species seek to improve the welfare of other people then we should place our emphasis on giving people an education, not subjugating them in sweatshops. (Resolution negated) ---References--- 1. http://www.businessweek.com...
The concept of the environment is a socialist plot to destroy capitalism.

I would say the idea of the environment started with Charles Darwin in 1859. "The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring. " [1]"In 1848, Marx and fellow German thinker Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto,” which introduced their concept of socialism as a natural result of the conflicts inherent in the capitalist system." [2]As you can see the idea of the environment came out after the idea of Karl Marx in 1848. So this idea isn't completely impossible. If the idea of the environment came before Marx was born I could show this as impossible. Instead, I will show how unlikely this idea that the environment is a socialist plot. Now Karl Marx and Darwin had contact, again I can't show impossible, but can show improbable. "Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl MarxOctober, 1873" [3]As you can see Marx and Darwin did not have contact until 1873 which was well after the idea of the environment was developed. Of course it is possible that Marx influenced Darwin to create the theory of evolution as a socialist plot to destroy capitalism, yet I find this absurdly improbable. Sources1. http://www.livescience.com...2. http://www.history.com...3. http://friendsofdarwin.com...
The concept of the environment is a socialist plot to destroy capitalism.

Hello, loyal comrades. As a devout socialist (coughs and splutters- apparently the word communist is illegal nowadays) I can confirm that the idea of an environment is a plot to destroy the capitalist infidels of the west, the idea is to push their focus so far into ideas of global warming and the environment that they will not see the coming revolution. Before they know it, the means of production will have been seized and the bourgeoise crippled. The master plan for the environmental decoy was first formed by loyal soviet Leonid Kzyladskystok, who's idea was taken by Comrade Stalin, and it's creator purged. The mighty Stalin then locked the idea away in a secret KGB chamber for later use. It was discovered years later, after the 'fall' of the mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, by loyal communist Hai Chi Zendog, who took the proposition to Xingping of China, who put the idea into action. In more depth, the plot is to pull the focus of weak, populist politicians such as Barack Obama to the issues of global warming, and how to prevent it, while secretly building up a force to crush the bourgeoise and initiate the revolution. Machines of war, such as tanks and planes, will be cut down due to their 'environmental cost' by the U.S. and other western infidels, while the loyal socialists in the east grow in strength for the revolution. Movements such as that of the infidel Donald J Trump have threatened to destroy the plot, so the spy Bernie Sanders was placed to win the presidency and continue to disillusion Americans and other westerners with the Global warming lie, in order to weaken the Bourgeoise for the upcoming revolution. So there you have it, capitalist pigs, from an insider. The idea of an environment is actually a socialist plot to initiate the revolution and destroy capitalism. Your loyal Comrade, Harry
Everybody should tell the truth all the time

It's true that reality is sometimes brutal, but it doesn't mean we should ignore it because it's unpleasant. It also might be true that the most mentally stable people are those who lie, but you should keep in mind that kids are also telling the truth all the time. You can't really say that kids are less happy or unstable. Moreover, I think that an honest person will feel better about himself if he'll be able to tell the truth rather than lie. If everyone were always telling the truth, it will be socially acceptable to tell the truth even when it's unpleasant, and the honest people will be the more mentally stable and happy. I'll now respond to my opponent:1. My opponent claimed that you lie in order not to hurt or get hurt. If you ask your partner about how you look in this outfit, you want to know what your partner really think about it. If you don't look good in that dress, and you'll go outside wearing that dress, than everyone will see you looking bad in that dress. 2. My opponent claimed that people will keep asking the same question until they'll get the answer they want to hear. I say, if we'll tell the truth all the time, in order to get the answer we want to hear, we will actually have to make a change. If I had a bad speech and everybody tells me I went good, I'll never get better, But if when I ask, I'll be told I was bad, next time I'll do my best to improve myself.3. My opponent claimed that knowing the truth might cause depression. Even in our world today, sometimes you fail, and people get to tell you that whether it's a test, or a job interview or a date. And it happens to everyone. There's no single person who had never experience failure. I even believe that some of this failures happens because of lying. Your mother tells you that you sing beautifully, you go to American Idol, now everyone can hear how badly you sound, laugh at you and it's on national TV. That may cause a bugger depression than if your mother would have told you from the beginning that you don't sing all that good...
Everybody should tell the truth all the time

Honesty isn't always the best policy. Nobody wants to hear that they look heavier or less attractive. People who are honest all the time are considered blunt, antisocial, and pathological. Modern society is all built around lies. The movies you watch are people acting, and acting is a person pretty much lying to make people believe he/she is another person. There has also been studies that prove that depressed and mentally unstable people are more honest that mentally stable and happy people, meaning lying is actually good for a person. People who are masters of deception are proven to be more socially accepted than people who are honest all the time. Now to attack my opponents arguments. My opponents first argument was “if we tell the truth we will have better relationships.” My first answer to that is that people even in the most honest relationships have to lie sometimes. Maybe its your anniversary with that special somebody and for some reason you totally forgot and they ask you if you made the dinner reservations. You cant lie so you tell them that you forgot about it, because remember lying is not telling the full truth. They will be mad at you, while if you had lied you would still have time to make those reservations and enjoy your anniversary. My next answer is, if your loved one asks if they look fat (and they do in that horrid dress) you cant lie and will have to say “yes you look fat, and by the way I hate the dress” they WILL get mad at you. If you had lied, they would love you for at least a few more hours. My opponent second argument was “we save time” it is a proven fact that humans know what others want to hear, lets say someone gives a speech and they did okay and they come up and ask you if they did good. If you cant lie you will say “no” because they did in fact do okay not “good” they will keep asking until they hear what they want, whereas if you had lied and said “yes” they would be pleased and stop asking questions. My opponents last argument was “we will be calmer” that is a lie. If we tell the truth all the time well it leads to depression. If you are honest with yourself about everything, you will end up depressed. Just think about it, you did this wrong, you failed a test. You forgot that assignment, you aren't all that bright. If you are truly honest all the time, well lets just say that your thoughts will be flooded with the bad things you did. Why because you cant lie, no even to yourself. Which brings me back to my argument Honesty isn't always the best policy.
Everybody should tell the truth all the time

This debate is inspired by the movie: "The invention of lying"http://www.youtube.com...Think of a world where no one ever lies. People don't even think it's a possible thing to say something which is not true.I think, for a change, it will be nice to live in this kind of worldHere's why I think it's a good thing:1. If everyone always tell the truth, we will have better relationships. Most of the arguments you have with the closest people (family, close friends, love partner) consider lying and hiding the truth. Once you are not able to lie - your relationship gets better !2. If everyone always tell the truth, we will waste less time. When you go to a job interview, or a first date - if the other side doesn't think you are right for what they need, they will immediately tell you, that way you won't sit at home, waiting for the phone to ring, or go to a second date when there is no chance.3. If everyone always tell the truth, we will be calmer. Every time you meet a new person you get worry - what if he is not what he claims he is ? For guys - Having sex with a girl, she tells you she's on the pill - and what if she's lying? For parents - Your kid tells you he goes out with his friends to a movie. and what if he get there on a motorcycle which you don't approve, or he goes to smoke cigarettes far away? No more worries ! What they say - it's all true !
club peguin is bad

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the bad-mouthing of Club Penguin and the tyranny of people who are wrong about Club Penguin being bad. Blessed is he, who in the name of an awesome hangout place, shepherds the dumb losers who don't want to be social through the heaps cool internet, for he is truly radical and a wicked. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my sick hangout place. And you will know my name is Zarroette when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
club peguin is bad

Despite my opponent forfeiting the opening round, I will still make an opening argument. For the purpose of this debate, "Club Peguin" will be assumed to be "Club Penguin", which I think is a genuine interpretation of the resolution's subject.Negative CaseA1: SemanticsA chief concern of my opponent's resolution is that "bad" is a very loose term. Further concerning is that bad is not defined. To illustrate my grave concern, according to Dictionary.com, bad can mean:1) causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful2) invalid, unsound, or falseNow, with regards to Club Penguin, it is true that Club Penguin, or at least participating in Club Penguin, can render a participant injurious wherein the participant dislocates a thumb in clicking the mouse too hard. However, in the other sense of bad, it is not true that Club Penguin is "false", due to the nature of Club Penguin not being a question or something that is of "false" nature.Therefore, according to "bad" definitions, it is possible that Club Penguin could be both bad and non-bad at the same time, which breaches the law of non-contradiction, and is thereby a logical fallacy [3]. Therefore, the resolution is inherently fallacious, due to its poor terminology.Counter-arguments"the reason why is because for alot of reasons like the membership the events and last but not least the community"This is a bare assertion, as my opponent provides no sources, statistics or anything else to prove these assumptions [1]. Hence, due to the logically fallacious nature of these arguments, they need not be further addressed.References[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.spurgeon.org...
People shouldn't judge music on genre alone.

I totally agree that weak musicians should not define a genre. If that is the argument you want to make then I am at a loss. The topic, however, wants to claim that people shouldn't judge music based on genre. I think this is generally false. The examples you give are of musicians and instruments, rahter than bands and genres. Each genre has a particular kind of sound. This is increasingly true as we specify the genre. All country music has a similar sound (to an extent), classic country more so. This similar sound gives people insight to the musicians/bands in the genre. If this were not true, there would be no such thing as genres or that band/musician would not belong in that genre. Given this insight, people can make a generalized decision as to that similar sound and determine, in extreme cases, whether or not to listen to that particular genre. If I look at a bunch of grapes and see that the first few grapes are soured, I can make a generally correct inference and safely assume that the rest of the grapes will be similar.
People shouldn't judge music on genre alone.

There are many, many talented musicians in every genre. Whether it is pop, rap, R&B, rock, indie, jazz, etc; there are great musicians. Of course, there are the not-so-good musicians as well, but more times than less, the less popular or less talented musicians tend to be spelled out of the genre than the more popular or more talented ones. For instance, when it comes to the saxophone in general, more people think of Kenny G than they think of Ornette Coleman. When it comes to bassists, people know about Pete Wentz way more than Victor Wooten. It's the same in every genre and every instrument, but it shouldn't be like that. Genres shouldn't be defined by just the weaker musicians that found their niche in their particular style.
People shouldn't judge music on genre alone.

Yes, bands in a particular genre are different, to a degree. But, as I stated before (and you seem to agree with me here) the bands in a particular genre all have a SIMILAR sound. Without that similar sound, there would be no genre. Yes, each band is different, but these similar sounds are what define the genre, and ultimately people's tastes. Avenged Sevenfold and Cradle of Filth are different and have different styles, but can be lumped into the same genre. If someone has an extreme dislike for one, they will most likely not like the other. It is the nature of the genre that groups bands together. Though all bands have slight differences, bands in the same genre have a similar sound. This similar sound equates to similarities in the band, which people can either identify with or not. Though it is a generalization, it is safe to say that I can make a judgement on a set of bands, based on the genre they are classified into, because the slight differences in style, technique, etc. will not be enough to effectively or drastically change my opinion between two bands in the same genre. If I don't like a handful of country musicians, I can safely say that I don't like country music, eventhough other country musicians are slightly different than the ones I have heard. The only exception here would be if I liked and disliked two bands in the same genre. However, if I specify the genre enough, this problem would be resolved (as I stated in round 1). For example, if I liked one rock band, and disliked another, I could specify my genre into screamo rock and classic rock which would divide them and allow me to make a decision based on genre. In general, I think it is obvious that this is the very purpose genres serve. Genres allow us to make these sweeping judgements safely because, by defintion, all bands in a particular genre will have the same likeable or dislikeable characteristics that will determine whether or not we like them. Even though the bands may have slight differences, that can either 1) put them in different genres if the difference is significant enough or 2) not be enough of a difference to change our opinion. These two options let us use genres, solely, to make our musical judgements. You obviously have a lot of musical insight and I really enjoyed the debate.
People shouldn't judge music on genre alone.

Just because a lot of genres have artists that make the genre sound the same, it doesn't necessarily mean that the genre is good or bad. For instance, you could have two metal bands: Avenged Sevenfold and Cradle of Filth. While Avenged Sevenfold has undeniable talent and musicianship while still keeping the base of metal in their music, Cradle of Filth has the base of metal down well, but they don't go anywhere with it. Another example is the debate on who is better: Blur or Oasis? Both are huge in the 90's Brit Pop scene, and both absolutely hate each other. Both have their great songs and songs that just don't seem to make the grade. Oasis got to the public more with songs like "Wonderwall" and "Champagne Supernova", but Blur's only really big song was "Song 2", which was featured on a lot of commercials. Also, What about pop? You have a lot of pop artists like Alicia Keys and Christina Aguilera that are tremendously talented and artists like Britney Spears that give the pop scene a bad reputation. Is pop a bad thing? Absolutely not, but that of course is a whole different subject that is up for debate. There are a lot of great "emo" bands out there, but they get a bad reputation because of their tactics and behaviors. This probably isn't the greatest topic to have a debate on, because everyone has a different taste in music. That's what makes music great, but the way people choose their music isn't right.
If you are Christian by definition you cannot believe in freewill.

I accapt this debate.It's worth quoting just once though in a debate with a title like this Martin Luther who said "In non-essentials, Liberty. In essentials, Unity. In all things Charity."this topic does not qualify as an essential doctrine, and thus all christians accapt each other as fellow christians even if we disagree on the topic of Free Will. what makes us reject that another person is a fellow christian is if they deviate in an essential doctrine like instead of saying Jesus is the son of God if they say he was instead Michal the Archangel, or if they say the power of the Jesus sacrifice was not enough to save us from our sins, but we have to earn our way in to Heaven to some degree.Pro would have to establish that doctrine about Free Will is essential to truely uphold the resolution, however thanks to his clarifying remarks it's clear he doesnt want to argue it really means your not a christian brother if you believe in free will, he just wants to make a case that from our doctrine Free Will is not logical. and I will hold that debate with him just as well as the other.I look foward to my opponents opening round.