BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism is necessary

Using my opponent's logic, one could argue that nothing is necessary. The world itself is unnecessary. This seems like a very bleak way to live. I disagree with this logic. His definition of necessary is "essential, indispensable, requisite." It seems two of these words are synonyms for necessary. I would, however, like to define the last word. I would define requisite as "a thing that is necessary for the achievement of a specific end." As indispensable and essential are synonyms for necessary, I would elaborate on the definition (not change) with the definition of requisite. In the cases of the Declaration and the Thirteenth Amendment, I would argue that these articles were necessary for their causes. The Declaration ended oppression from Great Britain. That document was necessary for the achievement of a certain end. The Thirteenth Amendment ended American slavery and the Civil War, the bloodiest American battle in history. I would also argue that it was essential for the achievement of a specific end. In the case of feminism, this idea and movement is essential for equal rights among people. This movement, as I stated above, provides an identity for those without one. It encourages strength in the oppressed. So yes, I would argue that feminism is necessary, to the end that equality is necessary for a functional, fair civilization. Sources: Indispensable: http://dictionary.reference.com... Essential: http://dictionary.reference.com... Requisite: googled
Feminism is necessary

Sources My opponent may not be fine with my source, but I accept hers. I accept it because it proves MY point. If feminism began in the 1400s, as my opponent says, then feminism is not necessary, because we used to live without it. Necessary vs. Should AGAIN, we're not debating if we should have feminism, we're debating if feminism is necessary. If my opponent wanted to debate if it should be on implemented, she should have crafted a different resolution. Definition of "necessary" My opponent did not argue with the definition of "necessary", so I can only presume she agrees with it. With this in mind, let's go over it again so I can build a foundation for my rebuttal: necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite Rebuttal: My opponent gave me a litany of issues, and asked me if I thought any of them were necessary. Well, to answer her question, we need to ask if they're "essential, indispensable, or requisite" 13th amendment? No. The Declaration? Nope. Abortion ban? Negative. Empowerment, respect, identity? Not at all. Don't get me wrong, I support all of those things, but they're not necessary. We COULD live in a world without freedom, respect, and identity. Therefore, feminism is NOT necessary.
Feminism is necessary

I do not accept your source from Wikipedia as it's not reliable. It is true Charles Fourier coined the word feminism, but the beginning of a word does not define the beginning of an idea. The idea of feminism has existed throughout history. According to Simone de Beauvoir, "the first time we see a woman take up a pen in defense of her sex" was with Christine de Pizan in the 1400s when she authored Epitre au Dieu d'Amour. Concerning your argument, if you define necessity by length of existence, one could argue that nothing is necessary as nothing has always existed. Using the same logic, would you argue that the 13th Amendment was unnecessary? The Declaration? Value and necessity is not define by how long something has been around. With that argument, there would be no fight against abortion because those fetuses have only existed for a few weeks, so what's the value, right? This movement, though has been seen more prominently as of late, has been around for centuries. If your belief is female equality is simply "nice", I urge you to consider what it provides and inspires: a sense of empowerment, a drive, self and mutual respect, and identity. Would you classify these ideas as unnecessary? Sources http://www.gender.cawater-info.net... http://i.word.com...
Feminism is necessary

At this time, since it wasn't defined in the first or second round by my opponent, I would like to offer a definition of the word "necessary". Necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite [1] This is a common definition, so I presume Pro will have no problem with it. Now for a little history of feminism: "Charles Fourier, a Utopian Socialist and French philosopher, is credited with having coined the word "f"minisme" in 1837. [10] The words "f"minisme" ("feminisme") and "f"minist" ("feminist") first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872,[11] Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910,[12][13] and the Oxford English Dictionary lists 1852 as the year of the first appearance of "feminist"[14] and 1895 for "feminism". [15]" [2] So, with this in mind, I think I can address all of my opponent's arguments with one general rebuttal: Since there was once a time when feminism didn't exist, it's clearly not necessary. It's not essential for our survival, nor is it indispensable, or a requisite. Feminism may or may not be a good thing to have, but it's NOT necessary. We have lived without it in the past, and could do so in the future. Remember, we're NOT debating if we SHOULD practice feminism. The debate resolution is about whether it's necessary. Treating women as equals is a nice thing to do, but it's not NECESSARY. I turn it back over to Pro. Sources: 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Feminism is necessary

Feminism is defined as "the advocacy of women's rights in the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." So many people still wonder why we need feminism, why any woman in this day and age would call herself a feminist. The word itself has become a dirty word. Instead of seeing it as something good, the idea of feminism has been warped and shaped into something cruel and oppressive, something that supports abortion on demand. Feminists are seen as man haters and women who want to take over and eliminate men. Many still ask the question "Well why do you still need feminism? Women have the right to vote, go to school, own property, etc." We need feminism because if someone never told them they were wrong, men would always treat women as objects, like a subordinate, like property. Feminism is the fight against this. But that's over now, right? That's no longer necessary? We fought our war, but now we are done, right? Men have not evolved from their original nature. Men have not surpassed and outgrown their feeling of superiority over women. Every single thing a woman does is sexualized. Girls are sent home from school for wearing yoga pants because "It's distracting to the boys." Fifty year old men will cat call 12 year old girls on the street. Girls are taught to walk down the street with their key between their fingers in case they are attacked. In cases of rape, women are asked, "Well what were you wearing?" We are told "You must have been asking for it." Girls are taught to cover themselves up instead of teaching boys not to rape. According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, "In 2014, female full-time workers made only 79 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gape of 21 percent." Feminism is not a hateful idea. Feminists are people who believe in equality of the sexes. Yes women have the right to vote and to own property. Yes we can go to college. But we are not yet treated equally. This is why feminism is 100% necessary.
Feminism is necessary

This is an important debate topic that can be sometimes difficult to discuss. I am here because I am a proud feminist and I am the head of my debate team so I am forming my arguments. Please be respectful. I know there are only 2000 characters available. That is because I believe this debate can be held without extremely long arguments. There are also multiple rounds so there will be a chance to say everything you want to say. Please keep in mind that this is meant to be a respectful debate.
Plants vs Zombies plants are better

Note: As Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in the video game Plants vs Zombies, the Plants are "better". Deconstruction: I can't tell what exactly my opponent's points were, if s/he had any at all. Pro did propose a question, however. Why would the object of a video game be to defeat an enemy that is superior to the protagonist? Well, to that I would say Super Mario. Metroid. Final Fantasy VII. If one doesn't know these old games, I'd say Demon's Souls. Metal Gear Solid 4. God of War III. Limbo. Many of the biggest games of all time have had the protagonist begin weaker than the antagonist(s) in the game. It makes everything that much more exciting. Who would take pride defeating a weak opponent? What kind of boss fight would that be? This is nothing new in games just like it's nothing new in movies, books, plays, music, ect. Hell, if you want a really old example just look at David and Goliath in the valley of eli ( I think that's what it was called). That's a template that's thousands of years old that is used all the time in video games (Shadow of the Colossus). If the only arguement my opponent has is that a protagonist in a story wouldn't be weaker than his/her opponents, then this isn't going to be a very fun debate. Construction: I was hoping that Pro would state his/her definition of "better" as it pertains to the resolution, but since s/he did not, I will argue the most likely definitions. 1. The Zombies are more noble than the Plants. One the one side, you have human beings who were (presumably) infected against their will with a horrible, flesh-eating disease trying desperately to end their pain. On the other hand, you have plants. They eat/shoot/blow up people. Umm... Yeah. 2. They are more dangerous than the Plants. Zombies are a determined group of sick humans who would do anything to thrive as an organism. Plants are a group of plants that shoot pellets their enemies safely from from 20 seconds away in order to have any chance of surviving. A plant that needs to attack from a safe distance away in order to not be destroyed in seconds up against a Zombie that, depending on the type of Zombie, could eat a whole row of the weaker plants by itself. 3. In a violent confrontation between Zombies and Plants, Zombies are more likely to win. In a violent confrontation, the more dangerous participant is more likely to be the victorious one. Q.E.D., the Zombie is the more likely victor. Conclusion: Unfortunatly, I can't draw up any solid conclusion because I don't know exactly what this debate is about. The term "better" is one of the more subjective terms and an odd one to see in a debate resolution. I strongly suggest Pro define it as it relates to the resolution if s/he want's either side to make any kind of strong argument. For all I know, we could be debating which of the two is "better" at water polo.
Plants vs Zombies plants are better

Well, maybe the game is skewed to the player, but when the people made the game, they knew that plants were better. That's why it's Plants vs Zombies not Zombies vs Plants. It could be you against the plants, which does happen in the game, but only cardboard cut outs, and you are just training the zombies so your battle can b much more fun.So Plants are better than plants. Why is the object of the game to defeat the zombies if the zombies were better than the plants? Answer that question.
Did USA Do Better Than Germany During WWII

Round 1: Acceptance ONLY Round 2: Debate (Arguments and Turn-Backs) Round 3: Debate Round 4: Debate Round 5: Turn-Backs ONLY Terms: WWII: A war fought from 1939 to 1945 between the Axis powers " Germany, Italy, and Japan " and the Allies, including France and Britain, and later the Soviet Union and the United States (dictionary.com) USA: The United States of America, commonly referred to as the United States, America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal district. (wikipedia) better: comparative of good and well (google) Germany: Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany, is a federal parliamentary republic in western-central Europe consisting of 16 constituent states I accept to debate for the side of Germany did better than the USA during WWII against my future opponent.
Did USA Do Better Than Germany During WWII

First, I will get into technology. Germany completely outclassed the Allies with tanks. The Tiger II, a well known tank in history, proved itself overpowered against the Allies.[1] Germany also worked on a project known as wonder weapons, producing the V-1 and V-2 bombs and rockets and much more.[2] Second, Germany occupied 14 countries before falling. That's almost all of Europe. It took almost the rest of the world for German defeat. Germany's allies were not as involved in helping each other as the Allied Powers were.[3] USA wouldn't stand a chance against the rest of the world, after all they failed to defeat Japan (Soviet Union invaded), and before Japan's defeat it was a tight game. If Germany couldn't defeat Japan, they wouldn't stand a chance alone against Germany, Japan, and Italy, much less the rest of the world too. Therefor, prediction wise, Germany did, combat-wise, better. I have proven that Germany did better with technology, along with attempting world domination. Now it's over my opponent. (I didn't even use half my space, but I will probably use more once I see your arguments). Sources: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://armedforcesmuseum.com... [3]http://www.funtrivia.com...
advertisement leads to rise in economy

Since my opponent didn't actually make an argument of his own, I have nothing to refute. So I will now offer my on arguments: Contention: Since advertising is unfairly accessible to the rich, it only benefits them, not the entire economy. Advertising is bad because it's unfair. It is a manipulative way of persuasion that is only available to the rich. If everybody had equal access to the creation of advertising, it wouldn't be unfair, but that's not the case. [1] Sources: 1. http://lifehacker.com...
advertisement leads to rise in economy

Why do most people prefer Coca-Cola to some other cola? Why do some people prefer Calvin Klein underwear to some other unadvertised brand? Are the advertised products functionally better? Not necessarily. But, in the mind of the consumer, advertising has given these brands added value. In the mid-1960s, a famous psychologist named Ernest Dichter asserted that a product"s image, created in part by advertising and promotion, is an inherent feature of the product itself. Subsequent studies showed that while an ad may not address a product"s quality directly, the positive image conveyed by advertising may imply quality. Moreover, by simply making the product better known, advertising can make the product more desirable to the consumer. In these ways, advertising adds value to the brand. That"s why people pay more for Bufferin than an unadvertised brand displayed right next to it"even though all buffered aspirin, by law, is functionally the same. Advertising also adds value to a brand by educating customers about new uses for a product. Kleenex was originally advertised as a makeup remover, later as a disposable handkerchief. AT&T first promoted the telephone as a necessity and later as a convenience. One advantage of the free-market system is that consumers can choose the values they want in the products they buy. If, for example, low price is important, they can buy an inexpensive economy car. If status and luxury are important, they can buy a fancy sedan or racy sports car. Many of our wants are emotional, social, or psychological rather than functional. One way we communicate who we are (or want to be) is through the products we purchase and display. By associating the product with some desirable image, advertising offers people the opportunity to satisfy those psychic or symbolic wants and needs. In terms of our economic framework, by adding value to products, advertising contributes to self-interest"for both the consumer and the advertiser. It also contributes to the number of sellers. That increases competition, which also serves the consumer"s self-interest.
God is Real

So God chooses not to lie, yet he deceive people. There are other examples, like Thessalonians 2:11.You just repeated your point on fine-tuning. I already explained how it’s not a sound argument.To make things easier I will make an analogy. Take a puddle in a hole. The puddle is created perfectly to fit the hole by God of the Puddles. The hole was created perfectly to welcome the puddle. At their interface, the puddle and the hole meet each other perfectly. Does this sound like a reasonable explanation? Isn’t more rational to say that when we weren’t there the hole was empty and the rain filled the hole? Of course we will never know for sure, we weren’t there when it happened, still, what explanation is more plausible. And if you are going for the God of the Puddles, isn't just as absurd as the God of the Holes? Even if we never saw the rain, isn’t it more logical to be atheist since there is no proof for a God of the Puddles? (and a God of the Holes for that matter)Also you wrote more fullfilment to prophecies that were ment to mean something else, the suffering of Israel in this case.
God is Real

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;" I do not know if you were serious when making that point. First of all, God is defined as omnipotent by people, not by his own word, it could be true that he is not able to lie and that omnipotent is not the best way to describe him as it is would not make sense because of him not being able to lie, but don't take words that humans give God too seriously. In the Bible and regular Christian conversation, there are some words or phrases given to describe God in a way that could help you understand God's actions better. With that logic, I am also able to come to the conclusion that what that part of Titus 1:2 said is just the way that he can best describe God so that people would be able to understand that God chooses not to lie, which I believe is the truth. No matter which way you look at this, it is able to be explained. Also, if you were to look at my fine-tuning argument again, you would have seen that I said: "First, although this does not prove other religions wrong," Meaning that I acknowledged it did not prove Christianity to be correct and followed it with this: "it is more logical to be an Agnostic than an Atheist." Meaning that I was clearly just pointing out how the idea of Atheism wasn't logical to to have faith in, as it is unlikely. I do take the blame for not making it clear that I was trying to expand on what most Christian debaters consider the fine-tuning theory because I posted this: "The fine-tuning theory has been debunked, yet there is still more to it." Rather than something much more clear like this: "The fine-tuning theory has been debunked, yet the idea can still be used as evidence against Atheism." Which I will do in future scenarios. As you can see on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org... There is a good amount of evidence that Jesus existed, but not any clear evidence of what really happened. About the prophecies, it would make sense if there were not more prophecies that all seem to represent Jesus. "For He will honor the pious upon the throne of His eternal kingdom, release the captives, open the eyes of the blind, lifting up those who are oppressed" For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall raise the dead, He shall bring good news to the poor." It would probably seem made up until you compare it to this: "Go tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the good news brought to them." Which you can see in Luke 7:21-22.
God is Real

No, the bible explicitly says that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Since the bible is the word of God, God said that he cannot lie.I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist, I’m just trying to disprove that he exists, or in other words, I’m arguing against the validity of the claim "God is Real".I was also not testing our understanding of omnipotence, just pointing out the apparent contradiction in the Bible: God can do anything, God cannot lie.I ignored the your fine-tuning argument because you said it was already debunked. But even if the fine-tuning argument was sound, it does nothing to prove that God is Real. If the universe is fine tuned, maybe Allah did it, or maybe Krishna, most probably the GSM or Russel’s celestial teapot. This is not even related to the bible so I’ll dismiss it.Beside this, the fine-tuning argument is not sound, but the particular way in which you presented it doesn’t make much sense to me. You said: Every animal needs to breathe, true Usually in a universe based on luck this would not happen, also true So? For the same token it would be very improbable for me to win the lottery tomorrow, yet someone will win the lottery. Improbable doesn’t mean impossible.Furthermore what about the other 99,999...% of the universe? Was that fine-tuned too to be deadly? But again, proving this will lead you nowere so why bother, still please explain to me why you like animals so much and completely disregard bacteria, fungi, plants and viruses.About the Dead Sea Scrolls, I don’t believe in Jesus so to me it’s just a story retrofitted to conform to as much prophecies as possible, but please ask the Jews (who really believe in this nonsense) why they think Isaiah and other prophets are talking about Israel and not Jesus. At any rate, remember that a true prophecy must have the following characteristic: It must predict something not obvious It must be precise and not ambiguos It must be improbable In your case Isaiah is clearly talking about the nation of Israel so if it was a prophecy it would at least lack number (2) as it’s not clear what he is predicting. The fact that it was quoted in Matthew to fulfill the prophecy doesn't prove much.But let’s say it was really a prophecy and it was really fulfilled Simon bar Kokhba is a far more compelling choice. He definitely carried all the sorrows of his fellow Jews, he was wounded by hebrew trasgressors (samaritans), but thaks to his sacrifice he finally declared a new Jewish state to protect all the Jews.
God is Real

Now you are putting words into my mouth. Again, it was not God that used the phrase "can not lie," it is just people's way of describing that he hasn't ever lied. Besides, you don't prove god doesn't exist by testing our understanding of omnipotence. Also, you ignored my fine-tuning argument completely when you made your argument on the first round. "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed."" If you have read the bible it should come as no surprise to you that this is talking about Jesus, and it is documented that Jesus existed.
God is Real

For your first argument, the word "deceived" was just out of anger, as he was complaining. It was not God who told him to use that word to describe it, but if you read further on, you would see that no deception took place. You can not take a few words from the bible and claim it is a contradiction without understanding the context. Some of the prophecies have been recorded and people have been able to find out the time it was recorded. If you want an example of this then read this: https://bible.org...