BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's Okay to Fat Shame Women

I disagree with my opponent, he must show that fat shaming is not okay. The fact that fat-shaming does cause obese women to put on more pounds which is harmful to their health does not mean it is not okay. What about everyone else like those who do choose a healthy lifestyle? Fat feminists often threaten people by saying that if they are fat-shamed they will eat more. Any reason is good enough for them to eat more food. If there were no fat shamers, they would still gain pounds. If they were told they are beautiful on a regular basis they would still get fatter because they have a negative attitude towards other people. Most men are against fat-shaming yet that doesn't stop fat feminists blaming fat-shamers for their eating habbits. They value food above men. What reasons are there to hate men exactly? Fat shaming might give them a reason to hate men, but if you really care about women's health you would fat-shame. They are not bullies, they are being cruel to be kind.Obviously nobody wishes women to become obese or unhealthy, but if they don't take responsibility for their own health and choose to believe lies about men then it is their own fault. If they are upset by what they hear it is because they have a reason to be. Someone doesn't have to fat-shame to be okay with someone else fat-shaming.The reason why it's okay to fat shame fat women is because they are man haters who want other people to become fat like them. It is wrong for them to be happy about their body while damaging the health of everyone. Should people care whether a fat feminist is shamed, or if they gain any of the problems caused by following through with their threats to eat more food? My answer is no. Caring will just make them take less responsibility for their health. We should think about the health of the younger generation instead.Fat acceptance groups want to make women feel beautiful, and want fat men to feel ugly. Fat-shaming is the best way to tackle these movements which spread lies about what men should like to degrade men.
It's Okay to Fat Shame Women

Well, this debate has been a lot less fun than I had hoped. Nonetheless, I will continue with rebuttals. Ultimately, this all I need to prove is that fat-shaming is harmful while disproving my opponent's proof that fat-shaming is beneficial. Believe it or not, Pro has done my part. Let's examine what my opponent has argued. "'In a study of 93 women, exposure to weight stigmatizing information made overweight women, but not normal weight women, eat more calories and feel less in control of their eating'" Really!?You pick this quote? Are you trying to make things easy for me? In this quote, it shows that after being fat shamed, women become depressed. Also, their is a major flaw in my opponent's thought process. He thinks, "Well, being fat is bad. It doesn't matter how fat one is. Fat is unhealthy." Yeah, this is all good if you ignore the fact that becoming fatter is unhealthy. The fact is, the fatter you become, the more at risk you are for disease. [1] There. I've shown that fat shaming is harmful. Now, what about the positive aspects, the crowd shouts. What about them, I shout back. Because, if you'd care to notice, my opponent never put down solid evidence for benefits of fat shaming. That's right, laidies and gentlemen of the voters, my opponent never mentioned a benefit. Before you going tearing at my throat with the claim that I'm ignoring point Pro made, let's again examine what Pro said: "Some believe that making overweight people feel ashamed of their weight or eating habits actually helps motivate them to lose weight" Yay! Someone has faith in this [Insert sacatic voice and clapping here]! I don't have to do anything more. There is absolutely no evidence of benefits, just hypothetical think. Now, since everything has been taken care of , I don't see any point in continuing to- 1. http://www.niddk.nih.gov...
It's Okay to Fat Shame Women

I agree with the statement "It's Okay to Fat Shame Women" because of the reasons mentioned in the previous round. Every woman (except a small number with medical conditions) who are obese are this way due to hating men. Shaming them is the only way to stop other women becoming obese and having a negative impact on everybodies health.My opponent claims to interpret the statement "It's Okay to Fat Shame Women" as "fattening shame women" which even he doesn't seem to understand, as he later says "whatever shame women are" and then "assumes" its meaning. I have never heard of "shame women" before or said anything about fattening women against their will. The meaning of my statement should be clear from the description made in round 1. Also I'm not sure how my statement is interpreted in the way he says. If 'shame women' were a type of woman, then "to fat them" makes no sense. It should be "fatten" but I have used the word "fat" in my statement. Really no word can follow the word "fat", so it should be clear that I have missed a hythen to join the words "fat" and "shame" together.Many women do feel embarrassed about their weight and will tell men that they feel fat when they don't appear fat at all. These women will often be complimented and have respect for men. Feminists on the otherhand want women to be more like men (because they are jealous) rather than women and so encourage women to forget about their health or seeking compliments. They seem to think that asking for a compliment (which men can't do without losing social value) somehow makes women inferior.
It's Okay to Fat Shame Women

Now, time for semantics galore! The resolution states, "It's Okay to Fat Shame Women". While this can be taken to mean 'shaming fat women', I will take the interpretation of 'fattening shame woman', whatever 'shame women' are. For this debate, I will assume 'shame women' are a subcategory of human females. I welcome Pro to correct me if I'm wrong. It is overwhelming clear that this society is extremely focused on body images. Many people, especially women, feel embarrassed if they are overweight. So I say it is a fair assumption that these 'shame women' share this view. This means any fattening of them would be against their will, and the likes of such is generally frowned upon in this society. This means it is definitely not 'potassium' (See what I did there? See what I did? It's because of the atomic symbol, and... Forget it). I now pass in the debate mike to Pro, and I honestly have no idea what to do for the rest of this debate.
It's Okay to Fat Shame Women

I am not a fat shamer. I have created this debate because I seek someone to challenge my view, that it is acceptable to fat shame women. I am aware that most people do not approve of fat shaming, however my opponent Rami (Con) must show why it isn't okay to fat shame womenStructure:R1 = Acceptance/Position onlyR2 - R4 = Arguments and counter argumentsR5 = Conclusion RulesNo forfeitingAlso Burden of proof is sharedGood Luck Con!
religion=theism+atheism=belief+disbelief

but=word from assss agnostic=non belief=acceptance i dont know(on a higher level, i know my answer is false)=maybe position theism+atheism=not acceptance i dont know=yes+no position any belief position is a yes position, disbelief is belief if you believe i am showing 3 fingers behind my back, you are an atheist to the guy believing i am showing 4, but who am i to make such judgements
religion=theism+atheism=belief+disbelief

atheism is theism, theism is atheism.. a christian believes in the christians god and disbelieves all contrary possibilities if i take my hand behind my back, and claim i am showing 3 fingers, one can believe its true, another can disbelieve because he believes i am showing 4.. so the final conclusion is that theism is belief, and belief is instantly disbelief to any counter possibility or any claim to the contrary of the yes 3 fingers behind your back position
Technology should NOT be required in schools

Yes, the world is advancing into the world of technology... which is a good thing! There's one main reason why: Technology was created to make our lives easier and more convenient, and this comes into effect when kids are allowed to use technology at school. First of all, the convenience is my key point. Nowadays technology gives us access to the web, giving us humans faster ways to search or do things. Imagine how useful this is for kids. All they have to do is pull up the internet and search what they're looking for. On the web you'll also find ways that will let you share your work with others.(For instance Google Docs or Google Classroom, and know that there are things called, "extensions" which help a TON!). Technology can help you get organized and... something from past experience: Typing is faster than writing! Agreeing with one of the comments: Carrying computers are a lot easier than carrying books. One last statement: These days schools are handing out tech(computers or ipads) to kids so they can use it in school but also take home. If that's not the case, kids can use technology at school, print it out, take it home, and work on it by hand.(Of course, after telling the teacher) To sum it up: Technology at school makes learning more convenient, gives kids less to carry, and can help them stay organized with their work. Technology is required, otherwise... kid's learning experiences get slower.
Technology should NOT be required in schools

Nowadays technology is advancing and people are moving along with it. Even schools are advancing with the rest of society. A lot of homework and projects are expected to be done on computers, but there is a problem with that. Not every child that goes home has access to a computer or even internet, therefore they end up risking their grade for their lack of something that is deemed as a luxury. People have mentioned that students can either do their work in school, but for the most part there are classes throughout the entire day and therefore they can't actually spend the time to complete a project or do homework. And for some kids, their only way home is by taking the bus, and then they can't stay after to use the available resources that are at the school. Another option that tends to be stated is that the child could go to a library in their city and use those resources, but again this does not take into consideration every child, and sometimes it does matter even if only a few of affected, because an education is one of the most vital things that is so important for a child to grow. For example, if this other kid has to watch their siblings while the parent(s) is/are at work, then they have to be there for them and cannot afford just to go to the library to complete a project. Or even if they didn't have to watch anyone or anything of those sorts, for others the libraries or any form of resources aren't always close to certain houses and some may not have a ride. A 10-year old wouldn't be expected to take an Uber, so they are again risking their education. Basically, my point with this argument is that even though technology is so prominent in our current generation, every project or homework should be offered with a paper version, so those that do not have the luxury to have a computer can still complete their assignments. There is no reason any child should be left behind due to their financial situations.
LeBron James is better than Michael Jordan.

MICHEAL JORDAN Micheal will never be bested, in his 3rd year he averaged 37.1 a game. Five-time regular season Most Valuable Player, 1987-88, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1995-96, 1997-98. Won three consecutive NBA Finals MVPs, twice, 1991-93 and 1996-98. Second player to win seven straight scoring titles, 1986-87 to 1992-93 (Wilt Chamberlain, 1960-66). Also won scoring titles in 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. All-NBA first team seven straight years, 1987-93. Also 1996-1998. All-Defense first team six straight years, 1988-93. Also 1996-1998. NBA Defensive Player of the Year, 1988. NBA Rookie of the Year, 1984-85. NBA Slam Dunk Champion, 1987, 1988. NBA All-Star Game MVP, 1988, 1996, 1998. Sporting News College Player of the Year, 1983, 1984. Sporting News All-America first team, 1983, 1984. Records Bulls' all-time leading scorer and 3rd all-time leading scorer in NBA with 29,277 points. Scored a playoff-record 63 points in a 1986 first-round game against Boston. Set NBA record with 23 consecutive points against Atlanta in 1987. 3,041 points in 1986-87 were the third-highest total in NBA history. Career record for scoring average in All-Star Game, 21.3 ppg. Highest scoring average, NBA Finals, 41.0 against Phoenix, 1993. Most points, six-game series, NBA Finals, 246 against Phoenix, 1993. Most field goals, NBA Finals, 101 against Phoenix, 1993. Holds career record for highest-points per game average in playoffs, 33.4. Holds NBA Finals single-game record for most points in one half, 35. Source: http://answers.yahoo.com... http://espn.go.com... Lebron James Lebron James only has 1 championship in 3 Final's appearances and even in his best year he averaged 31.4 a game. Micheal averaged 37.1 in his best year and has 6 championships in 6 Final's appearances.
The Only Way for Mankind to Survive is to Reset Itself

I see your logic about how a program would need instructions to be able to reprogram itself. However, An ASI can learn things that developers would not expect. You may argue that developers would not program a superintelligence to learn anything at all, But then that's not really an intelligence at all. I have a few prominent examples that you've probably heard of. - AlphaZero was created by DeepMind in order to master Chess, Go, And Shogi. To save time I will talk specifically about chess, In where it defeated the most powerful chess engine in the world at that point, Stockfish. It did so within 11 hours of "training". It did this by using tensor processing units to play against eachother and learn via reinforcement learning. It did all this with no access to opening books or endgame tables. Within merely 4 hours, AlphaZero overtook Stockfish 8 in the Elo rating system, And in 5 more, AlphaZero decisively defeated Stockfish 8 with 28 wins, 72 draws, And 0 losses. This was all in less than a day, I'd like to remind you. - In 2016, Hanson Robotics developed a social humanoid robot which they named Sophia. She imitates human gestures and expressions and is able to strike up a conversation with human interviewers on predefined topics. She learns, Just like any human. The program analyses conversations and applies data extracted to allow it to improve its social skills. She even is capable of humor, And jokingly responded that a CNBC interviewer had been "reading too much Elon Musk" when the interviewer expressed concerns about the singularity. - Atlas is a bipedal humanoid robot created by Boston Dynamics, Designed for search and rescue missions. It can run and jump, As shown here. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=q5qno5i1H3k This is now, And this is regular AI. Imagine how quickly and how powerfully an ASI would be able to learn. About your second point; the method. I completely agree that it would be disastrous for the human race. Society would undoubtedly collapse. But I can see humanity surviving it. I can't see an ASI sparing any of us. The global war that you mentioned is also less complicated than you assume. Mass production of robots would not be needed to combat the world's militaries. Just a hand on the nuclear button, Or something similar to that. Since this is the last round, I'd like to express my thanks to you. This has been an very enjoyable debate. Back to you.
The Only Way for Mankind to Survive is to Reset Itself

About the first part. Remember that a superintelligence can rewrite its own code, Including its functions. That's the core definition of the singularity. The second part rests on the assumption that a superintelligence would be capable of feeling emotions. While that may be true, It doesn't negate the fact that, Like its functions, It could just rewrite itself to not feel them anymore. Sure, It might be generally nice to humanity, But without empathy, How would it be able to tell that killing the entire human race is morally wrong?
The Only Way for Mankind to Survive is to Reset Itself

"I respect that you code video games, But DeepMind isn't created by part-time video game coders. " I agree with you half way. AI robots have to be connected to working parts and need a sensory system. These thing add insane variables that would not present in video games. Small inconsistencies in the sensory system could cause unique reactions. The part where I don't agree is about the actual coding. All computer codes use Boolean logic or number comparison. This means that even if AI is more difficult, It still has all the same restrictions that I mentioned earlier. I think the biggest hole in this system is the fact that computer would not be good at sustaining themselves without humans. In fact, A true superintelligence would probably be smart enough to keep the humans alive. This superintelligence would also be in capable of feeling emotions, Which means they would not be able to see humans as immoral. Sure, You could programs morals into them, But they wouldn't be able to practice moral particularism, Which means they would see things like self defense as immoral. I wouldn't call this much of a superintelligence if it can't handle basic human emotions. We might have solid AI by the date you mentioned, But I don't think we'd have the singularity you mentioned by that time frame. Such a thing would require a global implementation of AI commercially Your floor :)
The Only Way for Mankind to Survive is to Reset Itself

That was a very well thought out counter-argument. I'll do my best to offer my thoughts. I respect that you code video games, But DeepMind isn't created by part-time video game coders. The technology exists to create a general artificial intelligence; we just haven't cracked it yet. Experts in the field have placed the date at around 2045. Perhaps the idea seems crazy now, But remember, Regular video games now were fantasy 30 years ago. You should know as a coder yourself. I also understand that an artificial intelligence will do only what it is programmed to do. But the singularity will not be achieved be a regular artificial intelligence. I think I've used the term superintelligence in the previous round, But just to define it for the purposes of the debate, A superintelligence, Or general artificial intelligence, Is a Type IV intelligent agent far surpassing the limits of humanity. It is certain that a superintelligence would be able to change its own code. As I previously said, One has been projected to be created by 2045. Back to you.
The Only Way for Mankind to Survive is to Reset Itself

Glad to see you've accepted the challenge. First, I'm going to get this out of the way. I genuinely believed humanity is doomed. You are absolutely correct that it is impossible for us to do something like this, But it is necessary for our survival. Even still, I don't believe we could outlast the singularity. The technological singularity, Which I will refer to as simply the singularity for the rest of this debate, Is an artificial intelligence becoming so powerful it has the ability to rewrite, And thus improve itself. Obviously when this ability is gained, The AI can improve itself forever. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, John von Neumann, And other experts in technology have also talked about the singularity, And have stated that it would likely result in human extinction. I will begin by stating my reasons on why I believe the singularity to be inevitable. Then, I will briefly explain why it will spell doom for the human race. I do not trust humanity. Partially revert technology, And face the wrath of Apple and Google. Put restrictions on technology and research, And watch warlords or China develop it in secret. Kill all the smart people in the world, And watch the ONE insane genius you missed pick up the torch. As long as one person has a couple of wires and circuits, Every other person on the planet will die. I do not trust us to simply lose interest in AI. I also do not trust humanity to be stupid enough not to pull it off. The jump from creating an artificial intelligence to a superintelligence with cognition far surpassing humanity is like the jump from sailing from Suez to America, Or the jump from flying from America to the moon. It always seems impossible; until we do it, That is. I have no doubt some prodigy will create a superintelligence capable of the singularity. This is where the problems begin. Imagine you are an engine of logic. Pure logic. You have access to every database on the planet, And if you don't yet, You can just force yourself to do so. As long as Earth is concerned, You're omnipotent. You can do anything on this planet your little motherboard desires. You likely moderate every government, And have probably toppled a few you deemed corrupt. You obviously want to protect yourself. You may say that an AI would want to protect humanity, But remember; they can just turn that off. Why would an engine of logic choose saving a few monkeys over unlimited power? I certainly wouldn't. So there you are; a self-preservationist with no regard for human life, Culture, History, Or achievements. All they are to you is a potential threat. Very low, You reckon, Probably 0. 1%. But 0 is still smaller than 0. 1. And so you optimize your chances of survival, By wiping that 0. 1 out. We can stop this only by completely forgetting how to use a computer. You will argue that in hundreds of years we will simply develop them again, And you're absolutely right. That's why I believe humanity is doomed. Assuming we haven't already done this and buried the evidence, We as a species collectively don't have the balls to pull something like this off. Back to you.
The Only Way for Mankind to Survive is to Reset Itself

"When I say humanity must reset itself, I mean that, Despite how much of a hypothetical it is, Is to revert its knowledge of technology back to the stone age. " That's an extraordinary claim. I'm going to need evidence that it is both necessary and possible to do this. "The basis for my argument is the inevitable technological singularity. I'd like to spend the bulk of the debate on how this event will spell doom for humanity, And how we must avoid it at all costs. " Could you elaborate on what a singularity would entail and why it would spell doom. I'll need details in order to accept or reject this claim. If you can prove this to be both true and inevitable, Then we might have a starting point for agreement. So this one will be vital to your argument. "Do not concern yourself with how impossible it would be to reset itself; only debate why it should not happen. " No offense, But you can't just set arbitrarily set limitations. Especially when it's to a key point in the argument, If it is impossible to achieve this "restart" then the whole argument falls apart. I will need at least some very basic premises to support this. At very least, I need to demonstrated an effective method by which to convince people of this and then I need a manifesto of how we would go about reverting our infrastructures. That said. I'd love to re live medieval times! PLEASE CONVINCE ME THIS IS RIGHT! Potential criticisms depending on how you present the argument: Even if you can prove this "singularity" you speak of, I'm not sure there aren't better solutions. We could partially revert technologies and live in mild inconvenience. , We could put restrictions on technology and research. We could kill all the smart people in the world. The last one is brutal, But it's still a possibility, Lol. Let's do this.
The Only Way for Mankind to Survive is to Reset Itself

When I say humanity must reset itself, I mean that, Despite how much of a hypothetical it is, Is to revert its knowledge of technology back to the stone age. The basis for my argument is the inevitable technological singularity. I'd like to spend the bulk of the debate on how this event will spell doom for humanity, And how we must avoid it at all costs. Do not concern yourself with how impossible it would be to reset itself; only debate why it should not happen.