BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

Before refuting his points, however, I would like to remind him that he was supposed to use the MLA format for his citations. In the first round, I stated that "sources, if any, will be cited using the MLA format. " My opponent has not done this. I would also like to point out that my opponent has mispelled a few words. I believe my opponent rushed his argument. I would also like to apologize for having mispelled a word in my previous argument. I will not make the same error again. RebuttalsI will now refute my opponent's points. My first rebuttal will regard my opponent's hideos analogy. I understand what he is trying to say, yet the analogy was not executed properly. My opponent has made irrelevant points and some of his points I will manage to refute. I would like to discuss my opponent's last paragraph now. "[Y]ou would confess it would be absurd to send the ladies -complete with higher body fat and less muscle- out hunting, while the men stick at home knitting clothes and feeding the children. Tribal cultures aren't sexist, they simply have not been educated into retardation, or exposed to destructive political correctness. The women in these cultures, thinking clearly, are happy to be women, and fill the role of women. Only in our 'because your worth it', culture which is obsessed with self-entitlement do you observe these spurious claims of 'sexism'. "My opponent is not aware of some of the accomplishments and achievements of women. Thousands of years ago, it was women that created agriculture, thus revolutionizing the global economy forever. Women ensured the prosperity of nations; they helped heal wounded soldiers in warfare; they cared for their families in war and peace. This is not sexism; this is the role that women chose to take. It is not destiny for women to do this. When I spoke of sexism, I was referring to issues regarding economic opportunity and such issues. My opponent has not argued anything connected to these, which is unfortunate. "Men have a higher peak IQ than wom[e]n. It is important to understand I am not speaking of average IQ, but peak IQ. That is, the highest mens IQ's tend to be higher than the highest womans IQ's. (1) This is why the vast majority of inventors, revolutionaries, composers, CEO's, presidents, scientists who make great discoveries, etc, are men. " This may be true. However, this is not in any sense connected to the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate is that sexism is still an issue in modern society. My adversary states things that are completely irrelevant to the topic and I urge to the voters to consider this. My opponent states that men have a higher peak IQ than women. What does this have to do with sexism? I hope my opponent can answer this question. How is this argument relevant to the topic? My opponent's entire argument was irrelevant and irrational. My opponent wasted his time writing it. I am aware that I did not cite any sources in this argument. I did not feel the need to; my opponent's arguments were irrelevant and I proved so. My opponent will need to take a different approach in order to win this debate.
Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

Introdution I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I accept his definition of the word "issue" and I will now define another key term. "Sexism", in this context, is defined as "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women." This definition can be found on dictionary.com. Main Argument Contrary to popular belief, females are not the only victims of sexism. For example, divorce laws often favor women over men, stereotyping and assuming that women can care for a child better than a man can. This is not true in every case. According to CBS, "women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively." This cannot be ignored for this is absolutely hideous. Sexism is not only found within the law and the workforce, but it is also a part of daily life. When people say, 'Ladies first', they are stereotyping. They assume that women are weak and unable to wait. In my professional opinion, I believe that whoever is there gets to go first. Sexism is not only reserved for males and females; transgenders are also subject to it.Huffington Post states "[f]ederal law bans employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability. But sexual orientation and gender identity are not on this list, allowing employers to fire workers solely because they are transgender. Rebecca Juro, host of 'The Rebecca Juro Show,' was fired in 1997 immediately after telling her employer that she was in the process of transitioning from male to female." I urge you to further research this topic yourself and to be aware of the immense discrimination many people face. Given these facts, how can anyone argue that sexism is not an issue? It is a matter of what is morally correct. We have an obligation to ensure that both men and women are granted the same rights and privileges and that we do not favor any gender over another. MLA Citations I used the sources below and common knowledge in order to write the above: "Sexism." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://dictionary.reference.com...;. "Women Still Earn Less 50 Years after Equal Pay Act." CBSNews. CBS Interactive. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.cbsnews.com...;. Singh, Ishita. "Transgender Discrimination: I Was Fired For Transitioning From Man To Woman (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 July 2013. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com...>.
Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

I firmly believe that sexism is still an issue in modern society. This is not limited to women only. Both men and women are subject to sexism and I wish to prove this. My opponent will argue the opposite stance. I wish to have a mature, rational debate and therefore I feel obligated to implement a few crucial rules:1. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.2. There will be no forfeiting. 3. Sources, if any, will be cited using the MLA format.The debate will follow the structure below:Round One: Acceptance onlyRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and Further ArgumentsRound Four: Final Arguments and Further RebuttalRound Five: Final Rebuttals and ConclusionI look forward to this debate.
katniss is better then bella in twilight

Resolution: Katniss is better than bella in twilight My opponent is pro, so they will be arguing that Katniss is better than bella in twilight, while I will be arguing that bella is better than katniss in Twilight. Before we begin I'd like to state that BoP is on both since we are arguing an is resolution. Refutation #1 My opponent has failed to show that Katniss even appears in twilight. Unless she can do so, her arguments will NOT be valid. Since Bella swan is the protagonist in Twilight, she has the most important role in the films. The story revolves around Bella Swan's love life. While Katniss doesn't appear a single time in the entirety of the Twilight Saga films. Now this picture clearly demonstrates the importance of the Bella role in the whole Twilight saga films. Katniss isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the credit, so she has zero relevance to twilight. My opponent's resolution clearly state (IN TWILIGHT). I eagerly await their response.
Lebanon would be better without Hezbollah

first of all before judging hezbolla, you should probably read about the history of it. hezbolla howwe li 7arrar ljnoub men israel senet l 2000 hezbollah w sleho mesh mwajjah doddak aw ddode, sileh hezbollah mwajah dod israel w lal dife3 3an addiye w ared bas teje israel khalina nchouf min h ydefe3 3annena bwejja
Lebanon would be better without Hezbollah

I'm looking forward for a great debate. My position is that Lebanon would be better without Hezbollah. Hezbollah: The armed militia and not the political party itself. The scenario would be as follows: 1- Hezbollah would give its weapons to the Lebanese army. 2- The Lebanese army would be trained based on those weapons and the "beehive" military tactic. My opponent has to argue that this scenario would be worse to Lebanon than the one with Hezbollah's militia. Round (1) Acceptance only. Round (2-4) Arguments + Counterarguments.
Life for humans would be somewhat safer if there was only peace, and no war

War has provided humans with some of the greatest contributions to all parts of life. When World War 2 came it forced companies to develop penicillin on a industrial scale which has become one of the biggest life-saving drugs. Without it the Roman Empire would have come to be, and we might never had the numerous contribution they have made to modern society. There are many more examples though history. www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medicine_and_world_war_two.htm www.jstor.org/stable/view/2510229
Video games are not bad

It COULD be, but the probability of that is low. The last time anything like that has happened was about 4 years ago, or so, when Manhunt 1 came out in England. BUT, games much worse(GTA) have come out since, and kids aren't going out and killing! And if a kid has a problem, no good parent would buy their kid an M rated game! Its the law that u must have a liscence to buy M rated games, so the only way for a kid to get one is through a parent! And thank you, good debate so far
Video games are not bad

Video games do not always contribute to obesity. Playing for about 2 hours a day isn't going to make you obese. Also, in the Wii's case, you actually move. Video games don't trigger a psychopath. They are actually used as a way for friends to communicate, and share time together. They also raise hand-eye co-ordination. To extend that, here is an example. I have a cousin in California I rarely see. We both have Xbox 360's, and Halo 3. Just recently, we have often played together. Halo is fun for the both of us, and is a common hobby. Along with that, Xbox Live allows us to talk, just as we are next to each other. We ask each other how things are going, how school is, and even almost plan a trip for him to see me! This communication creates fun, and linking, while not having to pay for the long distance phone bills. Now, to answer the second argument, it IS a needed simulation. Many things in video games are impossible, or very hard to do in real life. SO, this allows you to do those things! Also, for those things simple to do, such as ride a bike, or play baseball, video games can be used to do those things, while it is winter, or you are sick. As I stated in my first speech, the Wii is used in Rehab. This helps people get the feeling of being free, and relieves pain. Also, the probability of someone going out, and killing someone just because they play Halo, or another shooter is very low. Millions play Halo every day, minute, heck every SECOND, and they aren't killers. We would all be dead if every gamer was a killer!
Video games are not bad

So this is going to be my first test as debating a side i don't support, but here it goes: Video games are, for the most part bad. Not only do a lot of them contribute to obesity, but some of them are the catalysts that trigger a psychopath. Time could be better spent in a book, or out with friends. yes, some are good, such as the Wii, but for the most part, it is unneeded simulation. If you see something in a game and think it looks cool, such as skateboarding, you may want to take it up in real life. But that future hobby could be quite dangerous, not only could it be about killing people, but it could be as simple as skydiving, which could result in your death.
rap music is dead

I still don't know what you mean by dead. Like dead, as in like, no one likes rap anymore? Or dead as in like, it's not popular anymore? Note that my opponent agrees with me, that there are still songs that are meaningful. That was the crux of Pro's argument, that rap music is not meaningful. Furthermore, there are still lots of people who like rap and it is still very popular. . http://www.youtube.com...Eminem - Beautiful, also released recently in 2009. Eminem is certainly a mainstream artist. He has co produced songs with Rihanna, Skylar Grey, and many other artists. Here's a snippet of the lyrics:I took my bruises, took my lumpsFell down and I got right back upBut I need that spark to get psyched back upAnd in order for me to pick the mic back upI don't know how or why or whenI ended up this position I'm inI'm starting to feel dissin' againSo I decided just to pick this penUp and try to make an attempt to ventBut I just can't admitOr come to grips with the fact that I may be done with rapI need a new outletAnd I know some sh*t's so hard to swallowBut I can't just sit back and wallowIn my own sorrow but I know one factI'll be one tough act to followOne tough act to followI'll be one tough act to followHere today, gone tomorrowBut you'd have to walk a thousand milesIn my shoes, just to seeWhat it's like, to be meI'll be you, let's trade shoesJust to see what it'd be likeTo feel your pain, you feel mineGo inside each others' mindsJust to see what we'd findLook at sh*t through each others' eyes This song is about not succeeding, but then getting back up and trying your best and becoming the best at whatever you do. Again, not about drugs or women, and still a top song. This song is certainly popular, as it has 116 million views on youtube, and it is still popular today, because if you scroll to the comments, alot of the comments were made within the last few days. Pro keeps claiming that songs today are degrading, and songs in the 80s were much better as a result. Howveer, Pro has not provided any such song. As I have provided a mainstream song that is popular today, and is not about drugs or women, I have won. I have proven that in fact, rap msuic is not dead.
rap music is dead

lil wayne killd rap.Rap is not a living thing, you cannot kill it.rap has no meanin no more. all bout women, killin n drugs now... rap used to be bout storytellin n reflectd real life.http://www.youtube.com...Talib Kwali - Get By, released in 2009Here's a section of the lyrics:Work 'til we break our back and you hear the crack of the boneTo get by.. just to get byJust to get by, just to get byWe commute to computersSpirits stay mute while your egos spread rumorsWe survivalists, turned to consumersJust to get by.. just to get byJust to get by, just to get byThis song talks about the challenges of life and how to over come them. Pretty meaningful. This song is not about women or killing or drugs. This rap is still about storytelling and reflected in real life. Therefore, present day rap is still meaningful and did not "die". The reason Pro provided that 80s and 90s rap was good was because they were not "all bout women, killin n drugs" and instead they "used to be bout storytellin n reflectd real life." I showed how today's rap is still about those things.Once again, rap music cannot be dead, and Pro has yet to prove that.
Do you think it is wrong or right to have sex before marriage

Since pro did not offer any arguments or refutations, I will just clarify some points.Nature of debate: Pro must offer argument's, not just try and refute mine.BoP is on pro.Morality: What ever promotes more well-being than poor well-being is moral.Sex promotes well being, thus it is moral (substantiated by the Felicific calculus)I don't see why it makes any difference if you wait until marriage to have sex(which I asked you to explain why it does).The only reasons to wait are god and religion, but those are bad reasons because god and religion are nonsense. Which I gave arguments for why they are nonsense.You must offer arguments for why waiting makes a difference and why it's better to wait and you have to give a good reason for why.
God Exist

My opponent has brought one argument which supposedly proves the existence of what I would call the Deistic god. Pro has made a very nice opening argument. He uses kind of a mix between the cosmological and teleological argument. To give voters a better understanding of my opponent's argument I will put it in ther form of a syllogism and then proceed to refute every part of it. Premise 1: Everything has a cause. Premise 2: The universe is part of 'everything'. Conclusion 1: The universe needs a cause. Conclusion 2: The universe's cause must be god. Conclusion 3: God exists. Premise 1: Everything has a cause. My opponent has brought no logical justification for this premise other than that because a T. V. , chair, and a piano obviously have a cause, this must mean that everything must have a cause. This argument is very similart to an argument where I argue that everything is blue because my eyes, the sky, and Dori from rom Finding Nemo are blue. I would like to change this argument to something more like "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. " This premise is actually provable logically seeing as to begin there must be a cause. I however argue that the universe did not have a cause and it does not need one for the exact same reason that my opponent argues that god does not need one. My opponent argues that god does not need a cause because 'he' created time. I argue that time is an inherent part of the universe as provable by the concept of space-time. Time is a part of the universe just as space is and so 'prior' to the formation of the universe, time as a force did not ecxist and so the univer does not need a cause in the same traditional manner that things like chairs or pianos need a cause. If my opponent argues that this line of reasoning is wrong then he opens up god to infinite regress. Seeing as all three of my opponent's conclusions break down along with this premise, I have properly refuted my opponent's argument and nothing more needs to be done. However I could't help notice that in my opponent's opwn definition of god he desribes it as a "he". This can only mean that my opponent believes that god has personal qualities such as the classical theistic god. He also describes god as "the all knowing". So even if my opponent can prove that there must be some external cause to the universe he has not proven that it is god seeing as he has defined god as something personal and more akin to the theistic instead of the deistic god.
God Exist

Hello I am here to prove through good logic, that God does in fact exist. Definitions- God= The creator of the universe the all knowing. I would like to start by saying will not be using any religious text to prove his existence. I ask you to think about a chair. How was the chair, an inanimate object, made into a chair from wood? A human took the wood and transformed it into a chair. A piano, a TV, all with the same concept. Now if the theory about the big bang was true I ask, where did those elements come from? Simple, God. Let me explain- Now there had to be something before those elements because time existed before those elements were there in the Dense Ball which exploded to cause the Big Bang. These elements have been created, by god because there had to be something before them. Now you ask what came before god? There was no time before god! God created Time and Space so he was always there, there was no time before him. Tying it back, you ask how rock was formed? It came from the earth which was part of a star at one point which was part of the dense ball taking part in the Big Bang. In the CPO Science Text Book it was said that the energy in the dense ball was equal to the resistance that kept the ball together and that an additional force was added for the ball to explode. I ask what is the additional force? God! God does exist, just not the way our religions state it to be.
I, James Earl Ticknor at 215 Oney Ave., enjoy the company of ham sandwhiches.

Ham Sandwich: A sandwich made with a filling of sliced ham. Company: An assemblage of PERSONS for social purposes. Ham Sandwiches are not alive, therefore cannot be real persons. Therefore one cannot enjoy company with one. My opponent's Argument is very weak and filled with flaws. He claims sloppy Joes were attacking him, but failed to provide any evidence that they were. One cannot go on another person's word alone in a debate, or else I could say that I am the ruler of Africa. I believe that my opponent is trying to be funny, but has failed. Thank you. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
I, James Earl Ticknor at 215 Oney Ave., enjoy the company of ham sandwhiches.

This is where I draw the line. The Ham Sandwhich, bidden from the almight Zela Lord, was brought forth to save me from the demon under the neighborhood playground junglejim. However, it descended upon my head, ushering in a new era of Sloppy Joes. One would think that the war for the String of Salvation at the Temple of Oblam would commence, but no, all was well. The Ham Sandwhich that rested upon my head immediately jumped off and apologize. Accepting it, I called in my own ham sandwhich minions to destroy the Sloppy Joes. Their steaming hot interior was being splattered all over the place and melting my flesh off, for they were suicide bombers. Aside from the stupidity of not blowing me up, the Ham Sandwhich Lord and my subordinates managed to subdue the insurgency of the Sloppy Joes. However, we could not predict the Fruit Jello multiplier factor. A giant mass of pink, jiggly Jello Brand Gelatin was rapidly growing via mitosis. Running from the prestigous mass of wholesome goodness, my Ham Sandhich minions and Lord flew away, leaving me on the planet alone with the growing Jello. I was to be betrayed! However, little to my knowledge, they flew to a cloud where the portal to the Oblam Temple was, where they aquired the String of Salvation. Forces unkown were wrought forth from the string and melted the Jello and evaporated it, leaving giant fruit in it's wake. With the soil fertilized with sweetness, the giant fruits rotted and more grew in their place. It became a Utopia for vegitarians, like me, who can enjoy the company of every ham sandwhich in the galaxy. Can you not see why my ham sandwhich friends flock here? It is wonderful here really, and I do enjoy the company of ham sandwhiches.
Mind Over Matter? (2)

I thank pop for challenging me to this debate - I was interested in debating him again stemming from our first enjoyable one, so hopefully this one will turn out even better. I am fine with my opponent's terms and definitions, and affirm that my opponent will be arguing for substance dualism. On the other hand, as per my opponent's request I will pronounce my profession for a physicalist position: functionalism. "Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part[1]." Before I end, I want to note one worry I have about the length of this debate topic. It seems that debating about substance dualism and functionalism can't be adequately captured in a few rounds (let alone a debate on just one of these topics). I'm not sure what my opponent will do, but I will attempt to structure my rounds to simultaneously defend functionalism while attacking substance dualism. ---References--- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Tony Abbott is the worst prime minister (Pro) He is bad (Con) He is Good

I believe that Tony Abbott is by far the shittiest prime minister of Australia. He was voted in purely for the fact that the majority of the population was sick of labour pushing the country even further into debt, and Abbott's promises included to get Australia "back on track" and to do so without taxing. Several months into his term, we can see that Australia is by far not back on track, and there are HUGE cuts into the medical system, and the education system. Sources are not required but if you believe they are necessary you may choose to include, Goodluck.