BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does being negative make you immature.

Through personal experience, I would say yes it does make you immature. Being negative could lead having a one tracked thought where you depend on comfort. You could often get dependant on things you already know of because the outcomes are obvious; there is no need to think things through. We stop tying. At first we simply just avoid the situation but skip a further it becomes a habit, called "ignorance". It becomes too hard for us to think therefore we run away from it, the responsibility becomes untainted. That's what makes us immature. We start to not only ignore but try escape situations thinking "eventually it has to change" because sometimes being negative, makes you lose confidence in your self. Why would you have confidence anyways? Have you ever dealt with anything ... no; through simply those thoughts things become harder. We allow our selves to stop working hard enough, for our dreams, passions, future since we began to believe that we are undeserving of it. " Next time I'll work harder" ... "Next I'll do better"... our negative thinking makes us lazy. The comfort we start to feed on, slows consumes us instead. We are afraid of the thought of change since we only focus on the worst that could happen. Since you already become accustomed to the way things are, why change ? why ruin this serene solace? Why try? Another thing that mainly follows is that we rely on others. On what they think, on what they say, because we don't trust our selves. We like the spoon feeding. It is like studying for those exams, where you simply mug it all in, for the sake of expectations but you never remember anything on the latter - basically unbeneficial. To conclude, yes I do think being negative makes you immature.
was 1950s america a sexy time for women

So you're saying that men are harder workers than women? That's unfair. Women weren't ALLOWED to work in the 50's, seeing as WW2 was in the 40's and it was the first time women entered the workforce. At the time, women would be shunned or ignored if they were single or raising children on their own. Work isn't 'torture', it's making a life for yourself. If you rely on the man, what if he walks out? You have bills, groceries, car payments, and so much else, that it's easier to be independent and know that your family is safe whether your husband stays or not. Some women like comfort knowing that they'll always be able to say that they have their own house and car. Women shouldn't depend on men. http://www.businessinsider.com...https://www.khanacademy.org...http://www.purpleclover.com...https://www.csustan.edu...
was 1950s america a sexy time for women

I can infer from that argument that the 50s were a lazy time for women,thats where the luxury comes from. Having the man, be your man all you do is sit all day no heavy lifting required. Frowns wouldn't stop you from doing you , you could provide for your family at that time of course you got frowns but a true stong independent woman wouldn't give a tuss and subject herself to that torture so yes you did have the opportunity to torture yourself if you wanted to.Why do that when you can rely on the man ,thats where the convenience comes from. Also i dont think it is right for you to discard my ideas just because of my age.
was 1950s america a sexy time for women

The 50's were horrid. The women weren't allowed to drive, work, or be independent. If they were, it was frowned upon. This gives 'to be seen and not heard' a new meaning. How would you feel if society said you couldn't be independent or even different? Only a 14 year old boy would see a time when women had to depend on men as the perfect era. So unless you have something other than a woman catering on you hand and foot, giving you sex when you ask? This debate is kind of over..
was 1950s america a sexy time for women

With that being said, it shows that women were to be seen and heard. If that were still the case, I wouldn't be able to say anything on the topic. Women were seen as someone who should take care of the family and it was frowned upon if the husband left. No one cared about the woman's happiness. The 50's were a horrid time because women didn't get the chance to retain their pride. If the woman wanted to provide for the family, she should have been able to.
homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with

"Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”From source one of my first argument.Pro, you can not just say something without facts or citations to back it up. All I see is you ranting and raving; but I don't see any studies. As Whitehead explained, if one twon is gay, the other one should be too. He was also calculating for chemicals in the womb. I love how you say that twins have nothing to do with said chemicals; then go on to say that gays are more likely to have a gay twin. Instead of speaking without factual sources and just expecting everyone to believe you, how about you actually try to put actual evidence in. Your word is not enough to debunk my sources. It's like me saying:"Being gay is a choice because I said so hehe I won the debate!"That's not how it works.My sources still stand.My opponent does not have citations backing him up.My arguments still stand. Everyone of my arguments are going relatively untouched. As of now, I am winning this debate.
homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with

No, there's no gay gene. There's no "male" gene either. Most complex traits are governed by multiple genes, the womb, and their epigenetic interaction. Talking about a gay gene is a red herring. What we do know is that there is a strong heritability component: one way of proving this is by comparing the concordance rates of identical twins with those of fraternal twins. Heritable conditions occur more frequently in identical twins. Being gay occurs more frequently in identical twins. But of course it's not all genetic. It's just that research shows no consistent link between any childhood factor and becoming gay. (There is some research linking sexual trauma to being gay, which is an inconsistent finding, however many of those subjects identified as gay before the trauma occurred). And since we do find correlation to prenatal conditions, the evidence is that it is an accident of birth. And given the overwhelming failure of conversion therapy to achieve its ends (and the experience of most gay people that they don't change even when they try), we are left to the conclusion that as far as we can tell it's both innate and immutable. I can't speak for the very few "success" stories of conversion therapy; maybe a very very few people have some interceding quality that lets them change, but the simpler explanation is that they were at least somewhat bisexual to begin with (since not all bisexuals favor both genders equally).
homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with

I can not find the citations for your source. Also, you admit some do change; which contradicts your argument that sexuality is fixed from the womb.You, again, provide no citations for your argument except for the statistics with gay conversion therapy.From source two of my previous arguments about the supposed "gay gene" and chemical exposure in the body."In 1993 Dean Hamer and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, claimed to have discovered a gene for homosexuality. Their study, published in Science [17], used a sample of 40 “gay” brother pairs whose sexual orientation was said to be maternally inherited. Hamer and colleagues found that 83% of the pairs shared the same markers on a region of the X chromosome called Xq28. Interestingly, a follow-up study including lesbian sister pairs did not show the same occurrence of shared markers [18]. Though the original study was never replicated,Time magazine featured an article the following week with a bold cover entitled, “Born Gay: Scientists Discover a Genetic Link.” In 1999, in the largest study of its kind to date, George Rice, George Ebers and colleagues at the University of Western Ontario failed to reproduce a statistically significant linkage to the Xq28 marker in a sample of 52 gay brother pairs [19]. Another unpublished study led by Alan Sanders at the University of Chicago produced inconclusive results [20]. Further evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality has not been produced."You leave my studies untouched. Your word does not hold more validity than studies that show the links. If you don't want to acknowledge it, that's your problem.Anime OP:;
homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with

I'm in a bit busy right now so I'll start with rubuttals. The short answer to the identical twin question is that while there is a very strong genetic heritability component (the 11% and 14% are probably the lowest estimates of it I've heard; some place it at 50% while others place it in between) identical twins do not share the same prenatal environment. Each exists in their own amniotic sac and the environment within each one can be quite different. Even minor changes in difference can change the ways in which the genes activate, causing epigenetic differences in traits. This point can't be stressed enough: there is no consistent correlation between post-natal childhood factors, like lacking a father-figure or sexual abuse, and being gay. Moreover, the attempts at gay conversion are utterly abysmal. Here's from one review of the available studies: "From the available data, four studies reported a "success" rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study." http://www.religioustolerance.org...
homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with

Let us consider the evidence that it is a trait rather than a learned behavior, and is not susceptible to change: 1) it is shown to have a heritable component 2) it is shown to be influenced by prenatal hormone factors 3) there is no consistent findings about it correlating to early childhood factors 4) gay people do no experience it as a choice 5) the statistics on conversion therapy show that it succeeds in maybe 3% of people and is more likely to harm people who undergo it, 6) Exodus International, formerly in competition with NARTH for the leading conversion therapy organization, not only folded in defeat, but issued a letter from its founder acknowledging that conversion therapy did not work and that they had been responsible for tremendous harm 7) People who do experience a choice exist as a distinct group: bisexuals. That these are separate if related communities suggests that while some people can go either way, others can not. And other things I can't think of off the top of my head. And against that evidence, the position that it is a choice or is changeable almost always boils down to two things: 1) Straight people who, being grossed out by what they imagine gay sex to be like, can't fathom why a person who isn't sick would do such a thing, and 2) Religious people, who can't imagine how God would make that kind of mistake.A279;
"Freedom isn't free" is an asinine statement for asinine people!!!!

I am certainly glad to hear you are opposed to war, as am I, but unfortunately we are still a cog in the war machine we call America. Of course neither you or I are guitly of murder, but simply being philosophically opposed to war doesn't excuse us of being guilty by association because we fund our countries empirical pursuits. As individuals we may not have done the dirty deeds ourselves, but we are members of our society and our society is responsible for its actions therfore, we as individuals who make up our society are responsible for the actions of our society. If you or I truly wanted to dissociate ourselves with actions we find ethically or morally wrong, we should demand that we not fund those things. The same goes for our government. I don't think I know anybody who likes our government, but it's rather complacent not to realize that we are the ones who put that government there. The idea that we need to help other countries be free comes at a cost and the biggest cost is our freedom. We cannot consider ourselves to be a free country if we have to pay for wars we don't want. It's a tough stance to have, but if we don't realize that those who cannot fight for and gain freedom on their own do not deserve freedom, sad but true. It would be far cheaper for us to keep our money and not fund these destructive wars and retain our freedom. We cannot get on with our pursuit of happiness if we have to constantly fight for the happiness of others. Freedom IS free, morally and economically!!
"Freedom isn't free" is an asinine statement for asinine people!!!!

If we are expected to continuously pay taxes to send our soldiers to foreign countries to die and kill, that's not freedom, it's imperialism. If we were free in the manner the constitution grants us freedom, then we would be able to keep our taxes and not have to worry about possibly being drafted. If we were a free country, our military would be solely to defend our country, but since we are not a truly free country, our military is a business and we the taxpayers are expected to pay the bill and possibly be drafted. That's not freedom. My opponents argument is from an unfree perspective.
Evolution more rationtal than creationism/god

Every time I get asked to supply evidence for evolution I supply it. However, every time I ask for proof of a creator (to clarify the creationism position) I get told you need to believe it. For this reason I open this debate evolution more rational than creationism/god. This challenge is open to any creationist (intelligent design) proponent. The opponent is necessarily a theist who thinks creationism is more rational than intelligent design. This debate will have four rounds. Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Scientific evidence for evolution from Pro. Scientific evidence for a creator from Con. Round 3: Rebuttals.
End Affirmitive Action

Affirmative action has provided college students who were accepted in to their school of choice but performed poorly when they got there. Affirmative action has provided "winners and losers throughout the years,"(http://www.bizjournals.com...). In which Affirmative action has drawn a wedge between the people within the communities and those who have been rejected in certain work places, and universities begin to reject those who have been accepted. Therefore, Affirmative action is unnecessary and needs to be abolished.
End Affirmitive Action

P1:70% of college official say Affirmative action IN THE US has had a very positive effect on higher education. (http://dailyfreepress.com...) P2: It has more positive qualities than negative side effects, including helping women as well. For Example, In 2012 "woman made up 46.9% percent of the workforce", and and had a decent percentage managerial/professional positions. (http://www.dosomething.org...#) P3: It's a way to help lessen stereotypes & discrimination by exposing the talents & abilities that minorities have, to their counterparts, employers, & leaders of educational institutions. C: Affirmative action is necessary
End Affirmitive Action

P1: Affirmative action has not presented enough equality, most of the inequality has been shown in the area of education, especially in areas such as Brazil, where Black people and other minorities were not receiving the proper educational treatment (http://www.stanford.edu...). P2: Though Affirmative action prohibits discrimination and racism, it still presents the chance for people to fail, for example, a minority can get a job, but still has a chance to get fired. P3: Affirmative action present a lot of political barriers that questions the situation most minorities are in today (http://www.edchange.org...). Con: Put an end to affirmative action.
End Affirmitive Action

P1: The fact that affirmative action has presented equality is enough. It's in place to make sure there is equal opportunity in the workforce and in education. It's been serving it's purpose. P2: It doesn't hurt minorities. Acceptance and enrollment rates among minorities have increased since it's been put into action, and where the law has been eliminated, those rates have fallen. (http://www.nytimes.com...) P3: Its purpose is not to end or hold off discrimination on its own, but since we live in a society that takes race into consideration, its needed. C: The government should not end affirmative action.
End Affirmitive Action

P1: Affirmative action has presented equality, but in very few places. For example, look at Stanford University, they believe affirmative action has divided the campus even more rather then unify and help the minority groups (https://alumni.stanford.edu...). P2: Affirmative action actually hurts the minorities applying to universities as it only serves as a beneficiary to Asian-Americans (http://www.thedailybeast.com...). P3: Affirmative action has not done enough to hold off long term discrimination. Conclusion: After nearly 4 decades, Affirmative action should be put an end to.
The Bible is a work of man, not God.

To begin, the Old Testament was written thousands of years before the birth of Jesus Christ, so those who wrote it really had no idea of God's true word. Furthermore, the Old Testament depicts God as vengeful and full of hatred, which logic and reasoning tells you he is not. So many people today attempt to use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, when they are only just small and scared people, hiding behind what they claim to be a work of God in order to justify themselves. This cannot possibly be a work of God. Furthermore, the New Testament was written years after Jesus's death, so there is a great possibility that the individuals who wrote the book improvised on or misquoted Jesus's teachings. The Bible does contain some good guidelines to live by (such as do unto others as you would have done unto you), however, too often are pieces that justify hatred taken out of context for bigots to use at their leisure. The Bible also states many fallacies, such as the world being created in six days, the Earth only being about seven thousand years old, and that we all got here because of "Adam and Eve." Whereas science (which is widely supported as truth) has gathered that the Earth was created in a slow process, where it was first all molten rock, then cooled down to form land and then water formed from hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, not because God felt like creating it. The world is much older than seven thousand years, for scientists have found fossils much, much older fossils of dinosaurs, which cannot really be disputed, unless you take the low road of "fossils are a test of your faith. Lastly, Darwin's theory of evolution is present to dispute humans simply being "poofed" here. The oldest human fossil was discovered in Africa and is estimated to be approximately fifty thousand years old. Many people disregard evolution because they do not want to believe that humans "came from monkeys" and they do not want to believe that we arrived here by "accident." However, not wanting to believe in something and something being a lie are two very different things. There has to be a point where these individuals mature a little bit and accept our true history, not fantasy tales. Make no mistake, I am not disputing the existence of a God in this debate. I am only arguing that the Bible was not written by God nor Jesus Christ. For if the Bible was, I would think that such large human assumptions (such as the science I mentioned in the last paragraph) would be stricken from the book, for I would think that God would know the origins of humans, our planet, and, not to mention, the entire universe.
Nationalism a curse or progress

To deny nationalism, in all of its forms, you are denying the very nature of human beings. Nationalism is no different than any other grouping with which people self-identify; whether it be religion, politics, sports teams, etc.. People have an obvious and overwhelming need to belong to a group. Groups offer a sense of identity, a feeling of security and a sense of comfort to its members. The creator? That is an entirely different subject and the premise for which I totally reject as having any place in this discussion. Humans have been killing each other long before the concept of a nation had ever been introduced. By suggesting that nationalism is to blame for this phenomena is tantamount to suggesting that religion is the cause of war. Like religion, nationalism only provides the excuse people use to carry out their natural predatory aggression. Your arguments seem to become more convoluted as it progresses. Instead of arguing that nationalism is the cause of all to the violence in the world you have drifted off into economics, individual countries, resources that are valued and some vague notion of what you believe capitalism to be.
Nationalism a curse or progress

Nationalism, a cancer that has taken root and has a strong foundation in the world today. Let's see what tribalism of old and nationalism of the new world has done. On the macro level, nationalism has divided the human species into 196 or 195 parts, depending on the countries of the world (196 countries if you count Taiwan as a country). Question arises that when the Creator of this world built this earth without any borders, why has Mankind made them? This has further created divisions in Mankind known as Racism. When Mankind is not ready to unite under the banner of Humanity then why would a White colored HUMAN consider himself equal to a Black colored HUMAN? Enough about divisions, let's talk about conflicts. Due to nationalism, Mankind kills its own kind, its own species, HUMANS without hesitation kill one another. World war 1, world war 2, the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict, Kashmir Conflict, Sri-lankan civil war and i can go on and on and on, just because the two Fighting HUMAN groups, (and try to understand my emphasis on HUMAN), are ethnically different. Millions of our fellow HUMAN brothers and sisters are dead and more will die if we (HUMANS) do not untie under the bond of Humanity with the core foundations of loving everyone, respecting each other's differences and trusting one another. Now let's see what nationalism has done in terms of economy. The creator of the world gave bounties to His creation, Humans, and scattered the resources around the globe. But alas the world got divided and HUMANS were never ready to share their wealth with each other and do not even feel obligated to help their fellow poor humans, so what has happened? A division of the land known as Kuwait is the RICHEST country in the world just because that nationalist group sits on a piece of land in the part of the world where crude oil is extracted and The Central African Republic which sits in a on a land where diamond is the major resource but due to ethnic violence, major political instability and corruption, it is the world's poorest country. Blood diamonds is the fame of Central African Republic. People will argue that capitalism is the cause of unjust distribution of wealth but in reality the cause of division in the economy of the world or individual country is directly related to nationalism as when Humans cherish the division of humanity, how can we (Humans) bear the concept of unity in economics which emphasizes on equality of wealth, thus capitalism a necessary tool which complements nationalism. The plague of nationalism is currently over the world and only when Mankind rises together united in the bonds of love, mutual respect and trust will this evil nightmare end.