BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Women" couldn't recognize EQUALITY if it slapped them in the face

2. 1 I haven't heard anyone make this argument ever so I think it's fair to skip this one, If you feel this is unfair you can let me know. 2. 2 But "this happens to both men and women, It's just people notice it more when it happens to women" just isn't the case (4) in most scenarios, I know it'll be easy for you to right this bit off because it's hard to document this kind of thing but the general consensus among academics seems to be in my favor on this issue. 2. 3 But isn't it weird that women are statistically more likely to be in the latter position (6), Are women just naturally in this position? Well from what we can see from the Nordic countries, If you take away certain barriers women face you will find more equality among the sexes in pay and work (4), From what we can observe from these countries, Women being in the latter position is primarily (and more likely completely) at the fault of their environment. Chocking this up to "choice" is very reductive, We do not have absolute free will, Are actions are generally shaped by our environment, So politicians and political commentators should push for change or policy that creates a better environment for people to make optimal decisions. 2. 4 I think I agree with you on this one, Although I haven't heard anyone I respect make the affirmative I will concede that it's baseless.
"Women" couldn't recognize EQUALITY if it slapped them in the face

I define EQUALITY as everyone having equal opportunities without outside forces putting unfair barriers on someones pursuit of happiness based off of characteristics a person cannot change e. G. Sex, Gender expression, Race, Sexual preference etc. I would consider the latter to be oppression, I believe that any law, Rule or regulation that specifically targets any subset of people unfairly (even unintentionally like voter ID laws) to be oppressive and should be abolished for us to have a fair and equal society. But I agree that people shouldn't blame others for their own actions. Look forward to a response.
"Women" couldn't recognize EQUALITY if it slapped them in the face

In the next few rounds, I will put forward several SCENARIOS OF EQUALITY that "women" don't normally recognize or appreciate. Your task will be to unmask the inequality within them or demonstrate their irrelevance. I used quotation marks for "women" in the title because I don't mean women. I refer to the few women (and fewer men) who make sweeping claims about "obvious and significant inequalities" between men and women--even when referring to present day USA. If you are one of these people, Please join me in this discussion about equality. In Round 1 let's begin by defining "equality" via general principles. My understanding of EQUALITY is based in the American ideals of "life, Liberty, And the pursuit of happiness. " That is, Equal people have equal freedoms and opportunities, But not necessarily equal results. This is because EQUALITY also includes the duality of "choice and accountability. " First, Equal people are allowed to make their own choices. Second, They are expected to accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices. Blaming others for bad consequences due to foolish decisions is decidedly NOT equal. However, This EQUALITY is tempered with a measure of justice. That is, Rules themselves cannot impair the preceding ideals of EQUALITY. However, There are few "rules" in most of the scenarios that I will put forward. What rules exist between a man and a woman in a romantic relationship? What rules exist between competing retailers, Or between a retailer and a potential customer? What rules exist between a husband and a wife?
There should not be a limit on the amount of hours a physician works.

As the audience can see, the opponent has resorted to insulting me and my position, instead of trying to refute the points I made. Also, his comment was extremely drawn out and had filler words to make his argument seem longer, thus, more accurate, and he has failed in his attempt. What he ended up with is a drawn out personal attack. Thus, I think I, and the audience, can safely say that I have won this round.
There should not be a limit on the amount of hours a physician works.

Physicians should not have a limit on the amount of hours they work. 1.) A good physician is a physician that is experienced, educated, and spends the most amount of time possible on their career, and advancing their education as a physician. 2.) The "doctors get tired and make mistakes" argument, which I am sure my opponent will counter with, is not valid. This is because, while a physician is working, almost the entire time, adrenaline is flowing. Adrenaline prevents the feeling of tiredness when caring for a patient, for most physicians, so I am just rebutting this possible point beforehand. 3.) Many physicians feel that their patients are their number one priority, and some physicians don't like their home lives, and come to the hospital to get away from their problems. Sending them home when they do not wish to leave work is a cruel thing to do, and the wishes of physicians, who save lives and have contributed so much to society, should be respect. Society has a debt to physicians, and restricting them in the hours they work is not a way to pay them back that debt. 4.) Having a new physician come in and care for a patient can make them uncomfortable, and not have as good of an experience in the facility.The longer a physician spends with a patient, the more they learn about the patient's attitude, limitations, beliefs, and interests, and can therefore interact with the patient efficiently.
There should not be a limit on the amount of hours a physician works.

a - And spending a large amount of time at a hospital doing a job creates experience, and the more experience one has at something, the better they become at it. b - This argument does not make sense. Adrenaline can excrete at any time, and can make up for tiredness, no matter what you claim. c - Increasing bed side manner is not the only benefit of longer work hours, which I have obviously already stated. d - Not all physicians become so for the money. Some physicians would prefer to work, as I have already stated. Some physicians enjoy working, and do a good job at it. I don't think that compromising a physician's education and excitement about working is a fair trade for a less-experienced surgeon who gets to sleep. Essentially, (more experience + less sleep > less experience + more sleep).
There should not be a limit on the amount of hours a physician works.

Pro is claiming that my entire argument is one that revolves around perpetually committing the ad hominem fallacy, but I have done no such thing. As to not repost my entire argument from the first round I suggest rereading my rebuttal from the first round. I also submit that if Pro is to make such a claim, he takes on the burden to prove such. To help my opponent understand what construes an ad hominem fallacy I will quote Hurley's "A Concise Introduction to Logic" p.119-120: "This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but to the person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the person. [ad hominem]" An example Hurley gives of this (p.120): "William Buckley has argued in favor of legalizing drugs such as cocaine and heroin. But Buckley is just another one of those upper-crust intellectuals who is out of touch with real America. No sensible person should listen to his pseudosolutions" I suggest that the possibility exists that my opponent has misconstrued reasonable rebuttal as insulting in itself. After claiming I've only attacked my argument Pro then wrote, "Thus, I think I, and the audience, can safely say that I have won this round." He may say that he has won or that he is right until he is blue in the face, but it won't make it so. Pro, for the sake of the audience and myself I say we deserve for you to justify your claims! As for the length of my rebuttal, I just timed my self reading it aloud. . . It was four minutes and ten seconds. I doubt that would be lengthy for this venue, especially after reading the other debates posted here. So as to not miss my turn to debate I'll restate in summary my points from my first rebuttal and elaborate on my last one. a – A good doctor is one who does his job well, not necessarily one who spends a tremendous length of time at his workplace. b – Adrenaline benefits the autonomic nervous system, tiredness adversely effects the prefrontal and temporal lobes. Indicating that no amount of adrenaline in the body can compensate for the slowed brain activity. c – Increasing bed side manner at the expense of the doctor ability to function well in his duties is not a wise trade. d - Lastly, a doctor is paid a salaried wage unless he runs a private practice. From that you can safely say a hospital pays less per hour the longer a doctor works, and a doctor time is worth more (in money) the less hours he works. Therefore, from a financial perspective, limiting a doctor's working hours only benefits the doctor, and prevents the hospital from exploiting the doctor's salaried position. I look forward to your reply Pro.
Unicorns are superior to pegasi

Thank you for your speedy and intelligent response. I apologize once again for my weak arguments and I hope you can forgive me. This round, I will start with my rebuttals to your rebuttals, and after that, I will state my rebuttals to your arguments.Rebuttals to your Rebuttals1. Unicorns are capable of much more advanced transformation than pegasi. Simple games for very young children do not show any proof of the pegasi's skills. Also, if a unicorn transforms into a pegasus, they usually still keep their magical horn and therefore are not pegasi. In fact, unicorns with wings turn into a completely different creature called an alicorn (1). For example, if I suddenly gained a unicorn horn, I would not be a unicorn. I would simply be a mixture of a human and a unicorn. The same logic applies to if a unicorn gained pegasus wings.2. A unicorn's horn is more overpowered than a pegasi's hooves. If a pegasi's hooves are cut off, the pegasi loses all of it's healing powers. Healing springs are very overrated; there are plenty of things that could go wrong with healing springs. For instance, if there is an evil monster that is finally harmed, and the monster happens to cross the spring and heal himself, then the monster will continue its path of destruction and the townspeople will have to fight it again. However, if the monster tries to heal himself through unicorn powers, the unicorn will most likely rebel against the monster and refuse to heal it.Rebuttals to your Arguments1. Obviously unicorns do have limits to their magic, but so do pegasi. Unicorns have powerful horns that can even exceed the pegasus (2). In the medieval ages, it was believed that the horn of a unicorn was so magical that it could heal any wound. I also pointed out that the pegasi's spring could be misused by villanous creatures with malicious intent. And since pegasus barely try to heal while unicorns try very hard, the unicorns have a greater effort and will obviously be appreciated more than pegasi.2. Your theories of Greek mythology of the pegasus powers are very unrealistic. You also have a few spelling errors. In My Little Pony, the show tries to create a more modern and realistic interpretation of what a young child will think of a unicorn or a pegasus. Medusa was slain by Poseidon, so you have zero evidence that there is actually a theory that pegasi drank Medusa's blood and gained the power to turn people into stone just by looking into their eyes.Sources(1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://magicofunicorns.tripod.com...
Unicorns are superior to pegasi

Thank you for accepting. I will begin with my first two argument, which are about the unicorn's transformation powers and healing powers. I was unable to write down my third point because of busy things I was doing in the past few days (a field trip, strings concert, etc.), but hopefully I can write that down in the third round, even though this is unnatural behavior. 1. Transformation PowersFirst of all, unicorns can transform into different shapes using their magical powers. Some unicorns can even make fake wings, which will give them the power to fly and even become equal to pegasi. The pictures below are not photoshopped or edited in any possible way. In fact, they are actually from an episode of a television show called "My Little Pony" in which a magical unicorn named Twilight Sparkle helps her friend Rarity, who is a unicorn, gain wings through a powerful spell. Unicorns can also transform into people, inanimate objects, and other animals. In this way, unicorns are very overpowered and can defeat nearly any person in a battle, simply by transforming into an animal of greater power than its opponent.2. Healing PowersUnicorns can also help heal other creatures. Their horn generates energy which creates force fields to protect other creatures and can also heal burn, bruises, cuts, scrapes, scratches, etc. Unicorns could possibly even be the cure for world cancer (that is, if they existed). In this way, unicorns are priceless. They are also immortal, which makes them even better, since they can help others forever and ever and ever. The precious unicorn species are very important. On the other hand, pegasi cannot help out people at all. They can only flit around helplessly and watch the mystical unicorn do mystical unicorn things.Unfortunately, I do not have enough time, so next round I will make up for it by posting a few other of my points. I did not have enough time this round because of my schoolwork. Please forgive me. This round you will post a few of your main arguments and rebuttals against my two arguments.
Resolved: A world where no one can lie, is better than the world we live in right now.

Thanks for the challenge THEBOMB.This round is for round 1 of lannan13's tourney which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...As I stated in the comments, I would like to change the definition of "better" to a world where people are happier. A better world, is a happier world.Furthermore, when "no one can lie", we mean that lying would just be impossible. Much like how licking your wenis is impossible, this is the same. Therefore, there is no need for any law enforcement to enforce the no lying rule.Please PM or comment if you disagree before you post your arguments.Also, I propose that you change the debate plan. I would like the 4th round to contain arguments as well. I just feel it would be an overall deeper debate that way.I look forward to your arguments.
creationism is best for the science classrooms

your bible made the claims first, not I, so it is you who actually has the burden of proof. A holy book is not evidence of the existence of such characters anymore than Harry Potter is evidence that wizards exist. Since unicorns and life elsewhere in the universe isn't hard to disprove I would like to see you do it. We must have a different definition of meaning. I don't believe in an ultimate meaning at all, there is no reason I should. I merely accept that when I die then I will most likely not exist. Can't be sure though, who knows, maybe I'll become one with the force and become a Jedi. You can't prove that I won't. I have made all the points to refute your argument and frankly I believe you have helped my case with you reasoning. Now it's up to the voters. I thank you for the entertaining debate, it was a blast.
creationism is best for the science classrooms

Religion does not have a monopoly on the 'what gives people purpose or why they have purpose' department. Just because it is some what logical to think that since we were born, there has been a purpose for us being born, doesn't mean that's how it really is. You say that without creationism there can be no meaning in life. Since all humans eventually will die then that is their only purpose. Why is that the case? How can you support this? We each give our own life because since I can prove my own existence, it makes logical sense that I am the one who gives it purpose. Wether it is through other people or a passion, how can you possibly say those things to give my own life significance? What "plausible" evidence did you give that they exist? I must of missed it. Now I find it comical that you dismiss possible life on other planets as "made up claims". How is a belief that there is life elsewhere in the universe any more made up than the claim that God exists? How has the universe been rigged to our favor if,according to you, all life is trapped in a single, small planet while there is a vast universe out there? You point out when I make claims of certainty about the existence of Adam, Eve, Noah, God, etc. and how I then must prove to you there existence for making those claims, even though you make this claims in the first place without out way to prove their existence in the first place. Beliefs given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But still I tried giving you evidence but it was pointless because you didn't change your belief and you didn't give, to me, a plausible reason to have that belief.
creationism is best for the science classrooms

Science classrooms are reserved for science, not fables. The scientific method has show. Its effectiveness time and time again. In the case of the theory of evolution it is no more a "theory" than there is a theory of gravity. In the case of creationism, the only thing I see it being effective at is giving a nice (depending on your definition of nice) story to those who find comfort in the delusion of a belief in God. Adam & Eve, the snake, Noah and his arc, etc. are all not real. I've read the bible and I'm versed in the workings of evolution. I am looking forward to a fun healthy debate and hopefully we can land on an island of logical agreement.
A conversation w/ a religious man

Okay then, if you insist. This was definitely an intellectual debate. It was difficult putting my ego aside because it is a known fact that you get under people's skin. Nonetheless, i believe i maintained my composure. But Sorry just to clarify why am I 'not allowed to ask' certain questions, is it because im not Christian? You already knew that, so why accept in the first place, I'm the interviewer I can ask what I like, this debate is about your stance on religion remember, not religion. I can ask, simply because people can change for the better! Sure i let you try dictate my interview, and put up with your discrediting attitude, however at least i got some answers,better than nothing. Further demonstrating my great attitude! Anyways, I'll admit you've taught me that fearing God isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering I'm just walking around aimlessly with my personal issues. In conclusion, we'll let the peoples decide who had the better conduct. Vote '55 if you think he was professional and formal. Otherwise vote for your boy Wolfy (if my questions were concise and relevant) I am also going to be restarting this debate with another religious bloke, probably leejohnson, per his request. For I actually want my questions answered in full! And apparently we normal folk are going to die in 7 years. Funny you say 7 years, because our cells change every 7 years, our personalities adapt in 7 year phases. Il be in the mists of my Quarter life crisis by then! How exciting!!! Thanks bro, bet no one has ever thanked you before hey, hey!!
A conversation w/ a religious man

Why on earth would the interviewer provide answers???!! , I'm here to get answers. Im trying to be diplomatic with you, but your completely disrespectful as usual. Ego aside, I'm satisfied with the overall responses. But I'd press why you chose to attack evolution when the people want more in depth analysis of creationism. Anyways, il maintain my great integrity, and IMPARTIAL NONBIAS, so the next questions, 1) Is there any existing evidence that could prove contradictory in your beliefs, in your own eyes? 2) The main problem against religion is that God permits natural disasters and diseases, can you comment on this? 3) One of your main concerns is that today's information age society is becoming less engaged with religion, what implementations would you want to promote to change this trend? 4) Feel free to quote a few Bible verses that can impact/convince newcomers with most effect. ie the ones you feel impacted you the most. 5)Do you think religion will continue to stand the test of time, considering the sciences and technologies have only been growing in recent decades, ie it lasted 2000 years bc of no intellectual competition. ?
A conversation w/ a religious man

What does LGBT have to do with this conversation? Its ashame you chose to politically divert that round, It was essential you told us about you in order for us to get a better understanding of yr perspective. Note the heading is a conversation w/ a religious man, and not a religion itself. So If you may, please do repeat that round. Or you can say you dont wish to do so, but next time dont attempt to discredit the clearly impartial interviewer, for you risk losing your audience. Nonetheless lets commence Round 3, and here we will address the root causes of Christianity- 1, In his day Jesus was a polarising figure, and it wasnt until the latter roman era that his ideologies gained political recogition, moving from fringe to mainstream , considering this can you whole heartedly Christianity hasn't been corrupted by politics. Sticking to the scripture,ayk my no.1 fallacy with that is that it was written by man, can you justify and clarify this for us.? 2, Apart attacking evolution theory, and without proclaiming divine intervention, [that is too simple and vague for a response ], can you justify creationism to a skeptic. 3, Do tell us of day in 1980 that changed your life. And feel free to continue responding in the comments.
A conversation w/ a religious man

Interesting, you have certainly made some highly noteworthy points to discuss. Firstly, and most importantly, I'm going to ask about what your life was like pre-1980, in order for us to better understand how you became a man of the scripture, so pray share that story. I know many people who have claimed divine intervention but normally because of their prior naive reckless socially wild behaviour, would you say that applies to you or no? After you've discussed that, let's really get to know you on a moral level, you say you have no opinion other than promoting scripture, but the scripture itself is filled violence and what not, much like the quran, so what i want to know is: to what extent would you put your faith in God over being morally just. Eg the holy Bible is exclusive for Christians as you mentioned, but that means good, communally aware people like your buddhas, gandhis, and dai lamas are hellbound, right?