BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Girls should wrestle guys

First, my opponent does not list her sources. This makes her claims invalid.Second, she drops my point that boys are stronger than women before puberty (around 12 and lower)Third, this was the agreed topic: Girls should be able to wrestle against guys on a competitive level.Just take these into account.My opponent has conceded key points that makes my case strong; such as women are weaker than men as they develop. She also drops the point that women will not be as competitive as men when they grow older. She drops the point that women are more likely to be injured by replying "so what?"Such differences between the genders can be noted by the army (1)" All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4. And: All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy. And: 1 All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)" My opponent does not give sufficient reasoning why women should be on the same wrestling teams as boys besides claiming she is quoting from a source that she doesn't even list in her citations.These are not adequate rebuttals. Overall, this debate was very lazy; and mainly driven by the passion and drive of the instigator as she ignores the facts I have presented to keep what she wants to believe a reality. Since Pro naturally has the BoP, she needs to prove that women should be able to compete against boys in EVERY age.I have fulfilled my BoP by showing that as teens and adults, men are stronger and can injure a girl easier. Even before puberty, I have shown women injure easier. As time goes by, the physical difference between males and females will be too great for females to overcomes; just like in the army. Eventually, even Pro herself will do best in a gender-specific league.The answer to why women should not compete with men on the same team is simple.They are physically not as strong and capable as men in sports such as wrestling. Thank you for your time.1. http://qz.com...
Girls should wrestle guys

"Prior to puberty, there is no gender-based physiological reason to separate females and males in sports competition. In fact, research demonstrates that girls who participate with boys in youth sports are more resilient. ... After puberty, coeducational competition should be encouraged at all levels where there are rules that require equal numbers of females and males on both teams and also rules that maximize fair competition between the sexes." We wrestle and go live with guys. we go 100% on one another. Yes, I may lose some times but you have to remember that wrestling is not only about strength. You must a calm clear mind as soon as you step on the mat. You are doomed to loose if you are not calm. I'm a tactical girl but when I need to I will also muscle things if I must. "Mixed gender teams of highly competitive athletes almost instantly earn each others respect and quickly learn from each other." I've learned so much by working with guys as well, not only do I learn how the girl wrestle but I also learn a different view point by wrestling with guys. Most injuries will no go very far because of the referees that are watching the matches unless of course you land wrong, then that is the wrestlers problem who should've learned how to fall before learning moves. As long as you can keep up with your match I see no problem. (I really love wrestling with both the girls and boys because its more fun and gets me fired up. I'm a competitive person and if my opponent is stronger I will attempt to learn their weakness and a short period of time we have. :3 also later, when I finish with my essay)
Girls should wrestle guys

You just saying something without factual citations does not make it so. They may be weak men. They are also only 14; so maybe their muscles aren't really developed. I lifted weights before in middle school. (8th grade) I was in the heavy lifters group. Due to that, I lost a lot of weight and got a lot stronger. Now, I look and feel great. The only reason why I quit was to go to college early. I know that all the guys there could beat the girls in a wrestling match. Not only that, they could injure them. Also watch the videos in the comments sections.
Police should be more reasonable for traffic/ speeding violations.

1. It is the police's job to meet their quota. 2. It is not the police's job to keep you safe(this was an actual supreme court case) 3. Your entire argument is based on the few drivers who are irresponsible. If a cop sees someone driving aggressively, failing to maintain their lane, or turning out in front of people, they should pull them over. This debate is about not ticketing those who may break the law, but are not posing in type of danger to someone. 4. Your argument of going through the motions and just looking instead of really looking has no proof to it. If I see headlights, I will wait for them to pass, simple as that. 5. You have a utopian driving view. You want everyone to obey the law. In reality, those who are simply driving safely, keeping with the flow, get tickets everyday. Those same people go the speed limit in the future, and get ran off the road. I know people who have actually had this problem. 6. If the following the law proves to be dangerous, do not follow the law. If you can drive safely and reasonably without following the law to a T, do it. 7. My point with the cop was really that it would have been safe to go sixty or seventy on that road. The cop did it, why are regular drivers not capable of doing it. Cops are supposed to "lead by example" aren't they? 8. The cop may not pass the law, but he or she enforces it. A cop should pull someone over and tell them that they are behaving dangerously, have a tail light out, or failing to maintain their lane. A cop should not ticket them for it. 9. If a person is driving down the road and sees a cop, they immediately feel as if they are doing something wrong and get scared. Police are supposed to be nice and friendly, not make us feel as if they are the Gestapo or something.
Police should be more reasonable for traffic/ speeding violations.

Yes, for many people a second is enough time to look both ways and be safe with going through the intersection, but the stop sign allows the law to put a standard on the intersection. Police don"t pull you over just to meet their quota, it is their job. Police can be held liable for many things in their job, one of which is if they are controlling the traffic correctly. If too many car accidents happen in a short period of time, the people the city or state blames are the police officers. They do not want to get into this situation so they make sure people follow the traffic laws. Think of police as more of messengers from the city or state and if you want to change a law, go talk to them, not the police. People who don"t stop at stop signs start to get complacent and not watch things around them with as much intention as they would with a stop. You may look both ways when crossing, but you have to ask yourself, are you actually looking? Or, are you just going through the motions? During midnight, driving can be more dangerous than you think it can be. If you get into a mindset of "I don"t believe that anyone is coming because I almost never see anyone during that time of night" can be the reason for many night time accidents. Also, one of the main reasons experienced drivers get into accidents is because they become comfortable with situations, such as driving at midnight. I have heard of the phrase "Go with the flow of traffic" and I agree with the idea that everyone going the same pace is safer than one car going slower and interrupting the flow. But, if everyone was following all the rules, and everyone was going the correct speed then going the flow of the traffic would not only be safe, but would be legal. I understand that this situation is unrealistic, but one must be responsible for their choices and going over the speed limit is still illegal and is still punishable by a ticket that the "messenger" of the law is entitled to follow. My, situation with the car accident was misleading. All I meant was that if there is an accident with no apparent person at fault, then it will be blamed on the person speeding. Also, whatever police you saw going 70 was breaking the law, but that is a different point to discuss.
Police should be more reasonable for traffic/ speeding violations.

What you say about how the speed limits are determined is basically true. However, what about the obvious speed traps. When in just a few hundred feet, the speed limit drops from 55 to 35. This is rarely ever for safety and if it is, the people coming up with these safety rules are like those overprotective parents. Let us move from speed onto stop signs. For many people, it takes a second to look both ways and see that it is clear. They do not need to stop. Especially if it is at midnight and there are obviously no cars coming. The cops still pull you over, but you were absolutely no threat to anyone. Now, going back to speed, I would like to bring up the Smith System. The Smith System is commonly used by commercail drivers and is regarded highly for its safety. The Smith System NEVER says to go the speed limit. But how can a system that tells drivers not to go the speed limit possibly be safe? It tells people to go the flow of traffic. Drivers who go the speed limit, particularly on interstates, are often at a greater threat because people constantly try to pass them. The Smith System teaches drivers to go the flow of traffic. However, police will still pull people over for going the flow of traffic, the right way to drive according to the safe Smith System. People get tickets for driving safely. This is just a lazy cop trying to meet his quota. For the record, the person driving in the wrong lane would be held liable. Only if it is your fault will your speed be blamed. Cops should only pull people over for aggressive and reckless driving. Not for something as accidental as speeding. Especially considering that I have seen cops going at least 70 in a 55, and they had no lights on.
Police should be more reasonable for traffic/ speeding violations.

Laws and regulations are set up as a maximum of the legal systems tolerance for acts they see as harmful to you and the people around you. If the state decides that the maximum you can drive is 55 then you are obligated by the agreement you had when you signed for your license to follow the laws. I can tell you when the law was made to set the speed limit there was at least some research done about the highway. How hilly it was, how many turns there was, how the sun shines on the road in dusk (which is the time the most accidents happen). They took this all into consideration to set the maximum speed. This means that it is the max of how fast the state feels it can let people drive with them still being safe. The police officer that pulls people over for speeding because it is there job, they don"t just pull people over because they can, it is because they are obligated to. To comment on the "police not watching what the traffic is doing or how many cars are out there" it doesn"t matter what the traffic is doing. What if you came out of a curve going 7 miles above the speed limit and saw another car coming that was going to have a collision with you; you did not have enough time to move out of the way. No one was killed and you were not hurt, but the other driver has injuries that put them into the hospital. You are to blame even if the speeding was not the cause of the accident and are legally obligated to pay for the medical bills. The speed limit is there to protect you from this situation and other drivers also. Also if the police let the speeding of 10 miles an hour go by without a ticket then where do they stop. Do they let this person speed because to was a sunny day and there was no cars around, or do they not because it is deer season and is more dangerous during this time of year. Do they let this man speed because he looks to be a safe driver, or do they not let him speed because there is a lot of traffic? The speed limit allows police not to have to make such decisions that could jeopardize them legally or morally.
Police should be more reasonable for traffic/ speeding violations.

People get tickets every day for driving 51 in a 45. They are driving safely but are going too fast. Cops pay no attention to what the flow of traffic is or how many cars are out. They just want to meet their quota. I think that cops should only give tickets to people going way too fast. For example, driving 65 in a 55 mile per hour highway is fine. No body will get hurt. However, driving 80 in a 55 should not be allowed. I also see a difference in the definition of breaking the law. I consider breaking the law to mean that a person consciously breaks the law. Like in my 80 in a 55 example. Not just accidently going to fast but still being safe. Like in my 65 in a 55 example. Start your debate in round one.
Nordic Socialism really is Socialistic

"Look at the defintions of social democracy or market socialism these are established accepted defintions" In market socialism, All enterprises are publicly owned but compete with each other within their respective sectors [see Britannica definition]. Market socialism is distinct from the concept of mixed economy, A mixed economy includes privately owned companies while market socialism does not. None of the nordic countries engage in market socialism. Just by the numbers you can see this too, OECD [Organization for economic development] estimates ~29 - 36% of employees are in the public sector for Norway (35. 6%) Sweden (29. 9%) and Denmark (32. 9%) which leaves approximately 64 - 70% of the employment being private sector based (i. E. In privately owned companies). That's ~2/3rds of the jobs being private sector. Regarding social democracy. . See Brittanica meaning: "Social democracy, Political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the second half of the 20th century, There emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, Which generally espoused state regulation, Rather than state ownership, Of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, Primarily in the former"s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society. " See the clear present day connotation which is with market based economies that have strong regulatory policy and welfare programs for wealth redistribution. This is something distinct from socialism in the proper sense. "Of systems based on market forces with private enterpised and a mixed economic system" Mixed economy is not the same as socialism (which, Is itself, Not the same as marxism or centralized socialism as I clarified before). The pro side is mistaking welfare state with mixed economy as socialism, Which is understandable and has been done by others in the past. I stand by my argument that Nordic countries have mixed, Market economies with extensive regulation.
Nordic Socialism really is Socialistic

"There are forms of socialism like Market Socialism and Social Democracy that have a market componnent" This is false, In a pure socialistic system either the state or a smaller collection of individuals (eg a worker cooperative) own the means of production in each of the different economic sectors. There is no competition in the free market sense of the term. Market socialism is not considered a purely traditional socialist system and social democracy is a political designation which has more to do with a state"s social safety net policies - political policies that promote wealth redistribution and policy based economic regulation but these aren"t the same as economic socialism which involve public ownership of industries. "your defintion is a marxist one i did not stupulate marxist socialism" My definition is not Marxist socialism, Marxist socialism involves state ownership of industries- I specified social ownership which would include also decentralized forms of socialism (eg worker ownership of industries). "NOrdics are very social democratic there for they fit a type of socialism. " I think it"s right to call them socially democratic but this is not the same as economic socialism. Having hefty safety nets, Strong regulatory policy doesn"t make one economically socialistic. What actually makes them have socialistic components in their economy is the fact that there are some publically owned companies (particularly in Norway and Sweden), And Denmark apparently has a strong tradition of worker cooperatives but these all operate within a market economy in that they compete with privately owned companies. Hence they are mixed systems
Nordic Socialism really is Socialistic

Thanks for the opportunity! Before posting my argument I'll start with definitions. These are all standard definitions: SOCIALIST SYSTEM: an economic system in which there is social ownership of the means of production. CAPITALIST SYSTEM: an economic system in which there is private ownership of the means of production. MIXED SYSTEM: an economic system in which there is both social and private ownership of the means of production. All nordic countries [traditionally, Denmark Sweden and Norway] have both privately owned [either individually or as a collection of individuals publicly identified as a business entity or corporation] and state-owned [either at the local-government or federal level] enterprises. By deduction, All nordic countries have mixed economic systems.
Developing countries should publish birth control policy

The pollution problem in China is indeed a problem. This is known worldwide. However, China is no longer a developing country. China has reached the point where water and food and electricity aren't as difficult to come by as is characteristic of a developing country. China has a population problem, yes; but their population is decreasing, not increasing. This makes it even more difficult to classify as developing. China has the second largest economy in the world. A developing country could not be so large and powerful. Basically, using China as your prime example of birth control is not valid because China is not a developing country. Finally, look at the consequences of their one-child policy. What was once a thriving population is now decreasing and aging. Rapidly. By 2020, the elderly population will have increased by 60%, and the population would be 400 million below where it would be if it had never instituted the policy. The one-child policy has cost China greatly, and now they will have to suffer the consequences of caring for a massive elderly population with a very small working population. That is what birth control policies do.
Developing countries should publish birth control policy

I think one of the very important reason that developing country should have birth control policy is about environment. As we know, lots of developing countries, for example, China, has heavy pollution problem. The reason that we have lots of population issues is that we have so many people in developing country, and the cars, factories, trashes, become more and more. According to the resource: "The scientists said the issue of population and its impact on global consumption was often described as the "elephant in the room" - a problem that the world ignores as it is politically and ethically difficult to tackle." (McGrath, M. 2014)
Developing countries should publish birth control policy

Your second argument argues that if there are fewer children, there will be more children going to school. This is simply not true. If there are more children, there will be a smaller proportion of children going to school, but there will be many more children in school than if there are fewer children. Basically, let's say you have 100 kids. They represent the children of the nation without birth control policies. Of the 100, let's say 65 go to school. That's 65%, and not a great number. But now let's only have 50 kids. They represent the children of the nation with birth control policies. Of the 50, let's say 40 go to school. That's 80%, and a pretty great number. But do you see the problem? Yes, the number is much better with fewer children, 25% larger. But the number of students attending school is much smaller, 25 students smaller. If there are more children, more will go to school. Also, the argument that women having more children is somehow A). Denying them of having a voice. and B). contributing to global warming is nonsense. Global warming is factories. Unless women are giving birth to cars and factories, they aren't going to save the world by not giving birth as much.