BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are men like dogs and women like cats

Though I wouldn't necessarily call myself a man (I'm only 15, going to be 16), I am of the male gender so I suppose I can at least give a little bit in this debate. Women seem to have a lot of advantages in many situations, though I do not believe that they hold too many cards, but more that (in some cases) guys don't hold enough. To children completely get the "brunt of all the rot"? In a few cases, yes, but a child's word can be much more reliable than anyone else's. Not quite sure what to say about the next paragraph other than I can agree with what I think is the overall message. Now, what will help is a personal experience of this, so if you could provide some as well that would be great. If you take the stereotype of women and men, then I guess you could say men are like dogs and women are like cats. Stereotypes are based on truth, after all; they don't appear out of nowhere. But, I know many guys who are not feminine but have more cat-like personality traits and vise-versa. Am I more likely to remain loyal to someone or would I be more likely to just ignore people altogether? DEFINITELY the latter. Though I'm a complete ambivert, overall I don't really want THAT much attention and would rather be left alone for a majority of my time. Besides, I guess with the belief of the cat owning the supposed owner, I'd share more similarities with the cat Lol. But also, what about dogs that are female and cats that are male? Are male cats like dogs and female dogs like cats (not an actual question by the way)?
Are men like dogs and women like cats

This is how I see it men are loyal and vicious, Women are possessive and wild. Men of today feel that women hold to many cards in the deck and we as men get a bad deal and women of today feel that men hold to many cards in the deck and we as women get a bad deal. When the fact is children get the brunt of all the rot that makes them the victims of all this rot that get the worse deal of all. Just remember it's all about all of us not just yourself. So us human beings of the same race that man made wire with the logic mind and a women put bards in it with the lateral mind. This wire works I suppose as it surely deters castle from jumping the fence but hey if the bull want's through a barb wire fence isn't going to stop it. It will get all cut up in the process but hay a bull isn't loyal and neither are cows. I suppose if you grow up in the city like most of the people here on this site. Believe me the country life is a humble one. So if you consider men to be the likes of a dog and a women the likes of a cat then realize this. You don't own a cat it owns you and a dog is a man's or woman's best friend if of course your not a complete idiotic ratbag.
Are men like dogs and women like cats

That may have just been the most confusing thing I've ever read. I'll try to interpret what exactly you said, but I was pretty lost. So one side of the coin is a woman and the other side is a man, is what I think you're trying to say. And each coin is for one relationship, not a generalized relationship. The thinner the coin is, the easier it is to see eye to eye, but that's all screwed up because humans have a tendency to want to find sexual fulfillment. Let's say that factor is the ridges of the coin. Going by American currency, quarters and dimes have ridges while nickels and pennies do not; not every relationship is obscured by sexual tendencies. In order to get rid of the "ridges", the couple would need to talk to each other about it unless there's simply no need to. However, people on the thicker coin simply see things, rather than searching or looking for them. This can be because of a troubled past, but it may just be because that's how some people normally are. I wouldn't describe myself to be the tails on a thick coin; though I had a troubled past, I'm not just going to be in a relationship to fulfill any sexual needs. But whatever the coin may be, they all have one thing in common. I'm not sure how it's "the heavy heart of responsibility the sin of the father that all men carry" (not sure how I can try to phrase it other than using a direct quote), but women are in charge because the bond between children and mother is stronger than children and father. Okay, now that I've interpreted it as best I can, here's the thing: Women don't have all the power in a relationship simply because kids bond with them better. Sure, it's a factor in their favor, but I've never seen anyone say "yeah well Jimmy likes me better which means I control the relationship". But what you're also describing are people who seem to lack basic human decency. A woman can control the relationship if she wants to because all the guy is in it for is for sex, supposedly. That's the stereotypical unhealthy relationship, but it's not every relationship. Well, I guess I can give a few songs then:
The stimulus bill will succeed

Either the government is really trying to do what it says but just gets it exactly wrong every time, or it is really trying to screw us and gets it exactly right every time. Anyway let's take a look at your assertion "In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to other customers to spend). Therefore, the money is spent regardless of whether it is initially consumed or saved." When you give your dollar to the bank it uses it to buy Merrill Lynch, or pay down its debt. This is not consumer spending. When the banks "quickly lend it to other customers to spend" it is in the form of high-risk high-profit home loans which will never be repaid but are kept on the books to make the bank look like it has billions of dollars when it is actually insolvent. Keep your eye on these bad debts. You will soon be buying them at face value. http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com... When you go to the bank for a home loan it simply creates the money out of thin air. http://www.populistamerica.com... The so-called Housing Crisis The banks have been scamming our homebuilding for years, and as long as we keep buying houses and paying them off it works fine. For them of course. But lately they have been ending up with houses instead of the cash they prefer. They never had any intention of owning houses, and the inescapable economic fact we are missing is that there is absolutely nothing you can do with a house except let someone live in it. Discounting of course the Spitzer-Clinton plan to turn them all into houses of ill repute. But they know we will not just leave the situation alone, and they did not get rich by letting a sucker off the hook. If they can create a problem by using mass evictions that can be solved with a large donation to the Church of Big Bucks, and we are sophisticated enough to fall for it then we have only ourselves to blame. Total bailouts so far: http://www.moneyandmarkets.com... There's that word, "unintended," again. I'm sure if they just keep trying their best they will get it right. That's $13,000,000,000,000.00. Two thousand dollars per everyone in the world. You are now sitting at a poker table and someone else at the table has thirteen trillion dollars. This makes your money worthless. Discussions about worthless money are pointless. http://www.prosebeforehos.com...
The stimulus bill will succeed

The Stimulus Bill is part of an ongoing plan to take money from the workng class and put it into the hands of the rich. It will succeed admirably. Thirteen trillion dollars http://www.moneyandmarkets.com... have already been pumped into bailouts. $13,000,000,000,000.00. That's roughly two thousand dollars per everyone in the world. This is nothing but a manipulation of money itself. The stimulus plan will give money to the middle class, not the poor. This is your first clue. Money given to the poor will not go to buy Merril Lynch. It goes directly to consumer spending. If ten million homeless got that money that would be over a million bucks each. That's just to get an idea of the size of the layout. Rest assured that none of these bailout plans will ever ever let money go anywhere the rich can't tell you exactly where it is. OK so the middle class get the money and there is some mechanism for transferring this money to the rich and you can take that to the bank. Along with the money. And by the way the stimulus plan is around, say two-thirds of a tril. Two thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in America. The tax refunds are maybe a fifth of that. Well where did the rest go? Perhaps they gave it to the poor.
We are not alone.

ResponsesResponse 1" You wrote, " It has never been reported that carbon, oxygen, and the other essentials that we need for life have ever been found on other planets. " That is completely untrue. Our neighbor planet, Mars, has trace amounts of oxygen in its atmosphere. Carbon and oxygen aren't elements limited to Earth. They are found on nearly all planets. The planets we have discovered that do have these elements have them in small amounts, but they are still present. "Granted I conceded there are trace amounts and worded that horribly. Was just copy and pasting a debate a did a long time ago, that still does not change my contention at all. Just because a planet has trace amounts of oxygen's does not entail that it can support life , or that life exists on that planet. Lack of correlation =/= entail causation. My adversary would have to show that there is life on mars, and not just elements that are shared with earth. Even with oxygen and carbon dioxide there is no reason to believe it can support life, due to it having different levels of them.He then goes on to argue probability, the debate is over at this point. Response 2"I am an amateur debater, I admit. But I also hope you recognize the flaws of your argument. The probability of life existing beyond Earth is so large that we can assume that were are in fact not alone. "The only flaw the argument is mis representing the fact that there are no traces of oxygen on mars. I conceded I was in error with this. As I mentioned it does not negate the resolution. We are not dealing with the possibility of life existing, but arguing the fact that life does not exist. The BOP is on you to provide direct and empirical evidence to support this claim. I have shown and why that is impossible and negated the resolution. ConclusionMy adversary has all but conceded this and knows he can no longer defend the topic. We are not debating probability but are debating a clear stance"We are not alone"For this to hold true my adversary must provide empirical or direct evidence to support this stance or it is negated. I have shown how and why possibility does not always entail fact. Therefore he can not defend this resolution. It is impossible.
We are not alone.

I acknowledge the flaws of my argument, but I shall point out yours: You wrote, " It has never been reported that carbon, oxygen, and the other essentials that we need for life have ever been found on other planets. " That is completely untrue. Our neighbor planet, Mars, has trace amounts of oxygen in its atmosphere. Carbon and oxygen aren't elements limited to Earth. They are found on nearly all planets. The planets we have discovered that do have these elements have them in small amounts, but they are still present. Mars once had water. We can infer that based on the evidence. Mars has valleys and canyons that reveal that there were once rivers flowing on Mars. We have discovered water in its solid form - ice - underneath the Martian surface. It is reasonable to assume that there was once life on Mars. This assumption is based on real evidence, therefore we can treat the assumption as if it were fact due to it being nearly impossible of it not being the truth. You wrote, "...essentials that we need for life..." We may not have found an oxygen-rich atmosphere and flowing oceans, but the essentials that we need for life are everywhere. May I point out that what we need for life may not be what other lifeforms need for life? We are carbon-based lifeforms that require water and oxygen. There are certainly species out there that can operate without oxygen and water. There are certainly species that do not require any of the elements we do. I am an amateur debater, I admit. But I also hope you recognize the flaws of your argument. The probability of life existing beyond Earth is so large that we can assume that were are in fact not alone.
We are not alone.

The Universe holds uncountable planets and stars. There are seemingly infinite realms and worlds, and galaxies and solar systems. The cosmos is addressed with many questions: Questions of origin, questions of fate, questions of destiny among many others. The vast space of our cosmos holds some of the most fantastic mysteries of all time. One question shall be answered as the debate progresses: Are we alone or are we just a single species out of uncountable more? My stand shall be this: We are not alone. We are joined by seemingly infinite other lifeforms. Earth is our home. Earth is our planet. And yet, we have been grounded for too long. It is time to look up at the stars and proclaim, "We are not alone." It is time to admit that out of many, we are one. It is time to realize that we are not alone. It is time to recognize the existence of life many miles away. There may not be life on the dark side of the moon or on the surface of Venus, but somewhere out there, there is life. As we sit in front of our computers, there is a civil war raging on a planet in a nearby galaxy. As we read a crime novel, a chancellor if giving his inaugural address in a realm billions of light-years away. Right now, uncountable different lifeforms are enjoying their life, as millions are enduring war and poverty. The aliens may not have cultures similar to ours. They may not have governments and families and marriages, but I know this: They are intelligent. There are over sixty billion planets in our galaxy alone that have conditions that could possibly support life. With billions of galaxies in the observable Universe, it is reasonable to assume that there are so many planets that could support life that we don't have a word for the number that will describe them. I recognize that not all of these planets will have intelligent life, but there may be unintelligent life as well: microscopic beings. When I say, "We are not alone," I am not only talking about intelligent life that resembles humans. I am talking about all sorts of life. There may be animal-like life, plant-like life or even life that we cannot classify according to our system. I believe I have made my point. I will quickly review what I said in a few short sentences: There are uncountable planets and stars. Why couldn't and wouldn't there be life on some of these planets? There may not be intelligent life everywhere, but when you search thoroughly, you shall find it.
We are not alone.

We are not alone. Humans are most certainly not the only intelligent species in the Universe. There is no God that made us or no Messiah that protects us, but there is a fundamental truth: We are not alone. There are uncountable - seemingly infinite - planets and stars in our Universe. We have only discovered a fraction of a percent of the entire cosmos. In our galaxy alone, there are sixty billion planets that have conditions that could possibly support life. We have not yet visited these planets, but it is reasonable to assume that our galaxy holds many billions of intelligent species, which are maybe similar to humans, identical to humans, or even so diverse and distinct that we would not recognize the species as intelligent when we first encounter them. If a television screen represented our Universe, the part we have discovered and that we are able to observe would be a fraction of a pixel. If our Earth represented the entire cosmos, a single drop of water could represent the observable Universe. Surely, we are not alone. Surely on other worlds in other realms, shall there be life. Surely there shall be life that can rival us and that can challenge the human capabilities. You may ask why aliens haven't visited us yet if they are truly real. That is a question we shall explore in this debate. But I will express what I do know: Humans are sometimes a pathetic and susceptible species. Why would aliens waste their time with us? Why would they avoid us and not visit Earth? There are many reasons, including the way we treat our planet, the way we tread our fellow humans and the way we think and feel. We pollute our air and our water, we kill our fellow humans, we allow the extinction of animals to occur, and we commit uncountable wrongs every single day. Of course, we have done a lot of good in our entire time of existence, but we have also committed uncountable wrongs. I look forward to my opponent's argument, which I am afraid will not be valid.
If an abortion can be justified in any way

Con still did not elaborate on his meaning of, "sin", but we can move on anyway. How does Con know that loving in an orphanage is better than non-existence? Con, most probably, and forgive me if you are, is not an orphan. To clarify, I am not saying that the lives of all orphans are terrible, but that isn't the point. The point is that children should have a family who wants them, and cares for them at the beginning, and if the woman was forced to be a mother, it is most likely that they do not desire the baby, much less care for it. Con seems to be saying that forcing a pregnant woman to give birth (a woman who wants an abortion, because they don't want a baby, or can't have a baby, through financial problems, age, etc.) is right.
If an abortion can be justified in any way

I think that living in an orphanage and being given a chance at life is better then not living at all. What I was saying about the sperm is that it by itself it does not have the potential for life, the only way it does have potential is with an egg. So a sperm being killed is not condidered wrong as the life does not have any worth. The fetus however is a worthy living being that does not deserve to be killed.
If an abortion can be justified in any way

So, does Con believe that the birth of a child isn't a mutual choice between both man and wife, that if a man, for some reason, wanted many children, and raped several women to do so, they could not get an abortion? What if the impregnated women are too young to support a child, a bad influence, or too poor! They can't get an abortion, so the children other live with bad influences such as alcohol, abuse, cigarettes, etc., or they are sent to an orphanage. Neither one of them seems to be great. Com also says, "it is murder to kill a fetus because of the fact that the fetus has the potential to be a human." He then went on to state that sperms do not have the potential to be a human, or at least by themselves. So, what is a sperm, to Con? If it isn't human, what is it? And what is an egg? If that's not human as well, what is it? and how can you create a human out of the combination of the two? I think Con would agree that a sperm is alive (I'm excluding the egg, since I have yet to understand the workings of the ovary, and I do not want to make false assumptions, but I am pretty sure it is alive). If a single-celled organism is alive, a sperm is as well. A sperm can create a human, so it must have some human DNA. It should be wrong to kill it then, right? I do hope Con elaborates on what he means by, "sin", since the Bible is hardly a great book to use for moral judgments, considering the elaborate, and strange penalties included in the Old Testament like for the crimes of adultery, rape, and Sodomy (Leviticus, and Deuteronomy).
If an abortion can be justified in any way

First off, a women who has an abortion after being impregnated unwillingly has sinned just as much as a woman who wasn't, because the choice to kill the baby is the same, irregardless of the circumstance. Secondly, it is murder to kill a fetus because of the fact that the fetus has the potential to be a human. A sperm on the other hand does not have the potential to be a human, at least not by itself, which does not make it immoral to "kill" it.
If an abortion can be justified in any way

First off: When a woman is violated sexually (raped), and the man fails to deploy any birth control method, such as condoms, or medication for the woman, she, most likely, becomes pregnant. Abortions are the only way the woman can remove the child. It is wrong to legalize a rule that states all pregnant woman must give birth to their child, since the raped women did not have a choice in its conception. Also, Pro-Choice allows for the woman to make the choice. They can choose to keep the baby, or not. By banning abortions, you infringe on their rights a human that can make their own choices. For the point Con made about murder, I will try to think this through myself. The whole argument about murder is based on the idea that the thing being killed is human. The point of view Con is arguing from would say fetuses, and embryos would be considered human. If this is so, why can't sperms be considered humans as well? They're technically alive, just like fetuses. Using this logic, then it wouldn't be just banning abortions, it would be enforcing laws to prohibit masturbation, and also wet dreams, because they're alive too. You can't just throw them into a garbage can, leave them lying on your bed, or throw them into a toilet. So, back to the argument at hand, the point I was trying to make is that murder is the conscious ending of someone's (human) life for malicious reasons, like hate, or apathy, but if we decide that fetuses are human, since they are technically alive, and part came from a human (or excuse me, is in a human), then following that logic shouldn't, sperms, and eggs be kept in the same regard as a human? This is ridiculous, since murder causes remorse, since it is a deviation from our morality (or moral compass, or God's law, or whatever belief fits into the parameters of morality), and people don't feel anything when they leave their sperm to die. Correct me if I'm wrong, Con. (Which is the whole point of this, now that I think about it)
If an abortion can be justified in any way

The argument Con gives, "Life is usually seen as a gift and to take that away would be wrong.", invokes the idea of religion, which, like he also said, would be an entirely different subject. I never said it would be right to kill an orphan, and that being an orphan is worse off than being dead. I am trying to to say that forcing a woman to give birth to child, and therefore raise it, when she didn't want to have it, through economic problems, age, or any sort of reason, would give the child a difficult start, since the mother didn't want to have him/her in the first place. Thank you for an engaging debate.