BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape/Sexual Harassment does not exist!

That is 1 article - even if your claims are true, it is 1 article. How many rape cases are there monthly ... yearly? I'm not sure if my opponent understands that when a person is going to rape someone they aren't going to just stand there are let them call for help - that would be stupid. The person was most likely gagged with a cloth to stop them from being able to talk. I would also like to bring up another argument since there is no debate structure there are no rules stating that I am not allowed to do this. I am curious to what my opponent thinks of this case: https://www.google.co.uk... In this case a man pleads guilty and admits to raping a girl. Surely this is enough evidence to prove that rape is a real thing that exists. If the rapist agrees that it's rape and the person who has been raped agrees it then it has to be rape. If a 6 year old girl is kidnapped and raped I never said that the girl had to be in a long term relationship because that's unlikely. What the point of that argument was that if a 6 year old was kidnapped and raped it would be slightly strange if they consented - especially if they were younger. My opponent claims that I have conceded when I say that some women may say no when they actually say yes. Whislt it is true that I believe this the word some is the key word here. The words all and some are different. You cannot say with enough certainty that all women mean yes when they say no. This is a false accusation that has been solely backed up with personal experiene Here are some of the reasons as to why I have won this debate and why my opponents case is invalid:- My opponent has failed to refute my definition- My opponent has attempted to avoid arguments regarding babies being raped and girls under the age of 12. - My opponent has provided very few reliable sources. - My opponent has used personal experiences as his source. - My opponent has demonstrated his lack of conduct in the comments by refering to me as a moron. - I have successfully refuted all of my opponents arguments and my opponent has failed to convince me that rape does not exist. To sum up, my opponent main arguments have been refuted by con. The question stating: is it rape if she climaxed? My opponent cannot say with great certainty that everyone who is raped climaxes. Rape can not only be one kind. There are other types of sex such as oral - would she climax them? My opponent has also stated that all women mean yes when they say no to sex. This is clearly false and backed up entirely on personal experience. My opponent has failed to show how he knows that all women mean no when they mean yes. Although this is rare - men do also get raped although it is usually children and teenagers being raped. Based on these facts ... VOTE CON!Sourceshttps://www.google.co.uk...
Rape/Sexual Harassment does not exist!

Before I begin, no definition contradictions were made so technically all of my opponents arguments are invalid but I will refute them anyway. ..1) The desire for sex doesn't mean that she wanted to have sex with that specific person. As I have said previously not everyone climaxes when being raped. Even if 99% of women do and 1% don't that still means that rape is real and exists and therefore I have won. Actions may speak louder than words but I don't regard that as a controllable action.2) This argument is completely based on my opponents bias and personal experience. The comment made regarding a women always meaning yes is a completely false and sexist argument. Making specfics towards females is sexist and is jumping to huge conclusions. Just because it has worked out for you and others in the past that does not mean that every woman wants to have sex. If a woman genuinly does not want to have sex and she says no, you cannot assume that she does just because she is a woman. My opponent has failed to respond to my argument, making mind appear to be a lot shorter than theirs. However, my opponent's argument is extremely short they have just ended a paragraph for nearly every sentence and provided more than one space in some cases. This makes my opponent's argument appear to be lengthy and a lot more detailed. I hope that voters will actually read through the debate rather than vote out of length. NOTE My opponent has failed to provide any rebuttals. My opponent has failed to provide any facts. My opponent's argument is sexist, bias and completely based on personal experience.
Rape/Sexual Harassment does not exist!

1 It shouldn't be rape if she climaxed . The production of moisture in the victim's vagina would be a result of psychological desire for sex, which also encourage the " perpetrator " to penetrate her even further . The " victim " might have said " no "with her mouth, however her vagina has said " yes" ,remember,actions speak louder than words .What you do show your intentions and feelings more clearly than what you say. 2. It should not be rape ; No means Yes. It's no secret that a woman could say no with her mouth, but means yes with her heart , because women never say " YES", when a woman says " No" she means " maybe " and when she says " Maybe " she means " yes ". I had a situation where I attempted to naai a lady, and she resisted, proclaiming she does not need any soldier to enter her barracks. I, being the gentleman that respect women rights, I let her be. The lady, however informed her friends she desired to be naai`d by me,I merely did not pressurize her enough . This shows women act like they do not want sex but inside they die to have the " perpetrator's " piel inside of them . Let's take a moment to read the following ,something I believe will provide an astonishing insights into the point I made above, and please note,The content may contain material that may be inappropriate for some users . A guy trying his luck invites a girl to his house, after refreshments, movies and music tries to get things going. He ran his hands down the sides of her body, his left hand stopping to caress her thigh. Her responds goes like this:- Please do not touch me . Then the guys starts to romance the thighs, the lady responds:- Please do not touch- The guy continues by pulling up the skirt and massaging the fresh, soft and warm thighs, and the girl responds:- Please do not - Then the guy goes further to kiss her inner thighs, getting closer and closer to her " cake " , she moans:- Please do - He thereafter had sexual intercourse with her, and she screamed with pleasure :- Pleeeassse ... This lady had sexual intercourse with somebody, moaned and climaxed, and because she feels dirty and cheap, she's more likely to bolt for the rape whistle! Now onto the links provided, did the victims climax ? If the answer is yes, it should not be considered rape, because the vagina consented.
Rape/Sexual Harassment does not exist!

I accept. Rape: The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will. Due to the fact that this definition has been provided by Oxford dictionary, it is difficult for my opponent to provide a counter definition from an equally reliable source that is in favour of their argument. As we know there are multiple rape cases in the world, here are some examples14 year old girl stabbed and rapedhttp://www.iol.co.za...; 17 year old gang raped http://www.newindianexpress.com...27 men rape girlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk... I think that both me and my opponent can admit that rape does happen. You may not consider it as rape but the bottom line is that the most reliable dictionaries define rape as something that does exist. Rape happens a lot and is a pressing issue. I cannot say much more on the topic until my opponent provides an argument. My opponent asks if it is rape if she moaned with pleasure. The answer is yes. It was unwilling and therefore it is rape. I almost certain that the definition mentions that it is against their will. They may not always moan with pleasure. My opponet makes this assumption with their round 1 argument. Babies are also raped and I find it disguisting and wrong. I doubt that they moan with pleasure. I ask that my opponent revises their argument and reads this carefully for posting their argument in the next round.Sourceshttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...The rest of my sources are the newspaper articles with their links posted above. I aplogize for the short argument however there is a 4000 character limit so I cannot go into too much detail with my arguments.
Every American citizen should have to take a knowledge test before they can vote in elections.

Alright let's end this. I'm going to give you 7 reasons why I win 1. he can give no historical example of where a test has acurately projected and affected anywhere 2. Even if you were a genious, that does not mean that your ideas are crazy http://comicism.tripod.com... 3. If you are a democrat in a republican district, then your vote does not matter. There is no effect from their voting. Those were the minorities I was speaking of previously. 4. The "becoming stupid" flaw, proves that you cannot vote pro 5. Voting doesn't actually matter, all it is the electoral college, If our vote mattered, gore should have one 6. If the Left is potentialy smarter, then elections are going to lean more to the left and to the elite, this would put elections at a disadvantage destroying our republic. 7. The reason I attacked voting so much, is because why wast funding, time, and energy on something that will not benefit us at all, Why enact a plan that isn't proven to be beneficial I urge a con vote
Every American citizen should have to take a knowledge test before they can vote in elections.

>>a county with a fourteen trillion dollar debt -Of course, you really think we can use funding for a test of all 300 million Americans? >>voting is an important matter and must be taken seriously. - not really, let's say that you are a minority, well you're vote doesn't matter, in the November primary, you're vote doesn't matter. >>am not proposing a test which must be taken every two years but rather something similar to a driving test -There is an inherent risk, What if someone becomes very stupid over a two year period? Then the whole point of your test is destroyed, To check the system, you would have to take the test for every two year election And don't you think that a congressman who was elected from a stupid district, would want to secure his power by intentionally sabotaging his role >>This is a representative republic - We aren't discussing policy, we're talking about elections >>the citizens hold the power to choose who gets elected into office Then Why wasn't Gore the 43rd (44th) president of the united states >>those fit to make an educated decision -Who are shown to be mostly left >>filter out the unintelligent citizens -Sounds pretty biased Now onto My case 1. Not effective- He can't prove anywhere that tests have worked or will work A. He dropped that it is a waste of time extend point 1 that it is not proven to work
Every American citizen should have to take a knowledge test before they can vote in elections.

Contention one: Wasting time I agree that we should be smart to vote, but to do so would be a huge waste of time and funding. Voting already takes too long in my opinion. To think that you would need to take a test every two years to determine how smart you are in my opinion would offset quite a few people from voting. The Pro will also have to defend a certain format, I don't want to waste 2 hours of my time to something that's pointless anyways Contention two: Voting doesn't matter It really doesn't and anyone who says otherwise needs to take high school government again. They would know that people's votes don't matter. It's all the electoral college. In fact, that's why the founders made the electoral college, to make sure that the idiotic public would not abuse democracy. If voting makes stupid people feel good then let them vote. They don't have a real voice in government. So there is no harm in giving them the right to say they have rights. Contention three: Would be extremely biased. I hate to sound like a jerk, but liberals have been shown to be smarter than conservatives. To base an entire election on education would be extremely biased for the left and put the right at an extreme disadvantage. Also, it would people who are poor, who have the best interests of their fellow poverty-stricken citizens. This would cause dehumanization of many people. And he refrences to literacy tests given to African Americans. These tests were elitist, racist, and inherently flawed. And they want to start them back up? I await his rebuttal
Every American citizen should have to take a knowledge test before they can vote in elections.

The American form of government, the representative republic, was made not only because the Founding Fathers feared a tyranny, but it was also made to protect the rights of the citizens and to have so that the citizens did not have to fully participate. Yet after reading articles in Newsweek among other magazines which hold statistics from the Department of Education showing a decline in the grades and brains of the generations of America, one cannot help but question if everyone is fit to vote. I believe the answer to be no. Similar to the Literacy Tests used to deny African-Americans the ability to vote, I believe a similar test should be used only this time to filter out the citizens who do not know enough about the current events and candidates to make an educated voted. Whether this ends with people getting who they feel to be the best candidate or not get elected, this will end with only the people best fit to make the votes, will make the votes.
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering

This debate was created due to a discussion in the forums which you can view here: . http://www.debate.org...Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources (1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk...
Batman is Partially Responsible for the Crimes of the Joker

Good luck to my opponent and enjoy the read! Full Resolution: The fictional character known as the Batman is partially responsible for some of the crimes of the fictional character known as the Joker. I shall argue in favor of the resolution and my opponent shall argue against it. I ask that my opponent take the contrary position (i. e. Batman is not partially responsible. .. ) rather than a modified position (e. g. Batman is wholly responsible. .. ). Conditions: - 72 hour deadlines - 5000 character limit - R1: Formalities and opening statements - R2-R3: Arguments and refutations - R4: Summations and refutations I do not expect a semantics argument from my opponent and believe that the colloquial meanings of all terms involved are both understood and appropriate in this debate. Nevertheless, for the sake of certainty, definitions will be provided. Should Con take issue with any definition (or other aspect of the debate), I ask that we discuss the matter in the comments section and post any necessary revisions in the following round. - Batman: . http://dc.wikia.com... [1] - Joker: . http://dc.wikia.com... [2] - Partially: being such in part only; not total or general; incomplete [3] - Responsible: chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something [4] ::Opening Statement:: Bruce Wayne (a. k. a. Batman) is a criminal. A wayward vigilante, he flagrantly breaks the law in his attempts to right what he considers to be wrongs within the justice system. Ironically, his unlawful activities both directly and indirectly spawn the very evil he fights against. The most apparent example of this phenomenon is that of the Joker, a murderer who Wayne helped to create, continues to motivate, and refuses to destroy. Regardless of the intent behind his heroics, Wayne's arrogance, hypocrisy, and criminal activity make him partially to blame for the atrocities of his arch nemesis. With that brief opener, I turn the floor over to my esteemed opponent =D References: 1. . http://dc.wikia.com... 2. . http://dc.wikia.com... 3. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. . http://dictionary.reference.com...
An Environmental Debate

Point 1: The Keystone XL Pipeline would have created at least thousands of permenant workers and tens of thousands of temporary workers. Jobs Needed for the Pipeline: 1. To dig the materials to build the pipeline from the ground. (Temporary Jobs) 2. To mold the materials into steel. (Some temporary, some permenant) 3. To ship the steel to the location. (Temporary Jobs) 4. To build the pipeline. (Temporary Jobs) 5. To maintain the pipeline. (Permenant Jobs) 6. To maintain spills (Semi-Permenant Jobs) 7. To administer the pipeline (Permenant Jobs) This requires tens of thousands of people to adequately fill all of the job positions in the seven categories above. Environmentalists often argue that the number of jobs created would be below 1000. But by nature, this is impossible because of the amount of materials, the magnitude of the project, and the maintaining of it after it is built. "That figure, based on a report by a consulting firm hired by Transcanada to assess the project's economic impact, has been widely cited by Keystone backers on Capitol Hill. Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs."[1] "According to the Department of Energy, this one project will "essentially eliminate" oil imports from the Middle East. It will create more than 100,000 jobs and strengthen our relationship with a close ally and trading partner. A project like this should be a no-brainer, and there's simply no good reason it has been stuck in the State Department's red tape for nearly three years."[2] "Costing $7 billion, the pipeline would create 20,000 well-paying construction jobs immediately. Midwest construction workers, one of the demographics hit hardest by the economic downturn, desperately need this project. While blue-collar workers would receive many of the direct benefits from Keystoneï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½„ï¿½s construction, thousands of businesses from nearly every state would have reaped indirect business were Obama to simply allow the Keystone project to be built. 2,400 American companies in 49 states are involved in the production of Canadian oil sands."[3] Point 2: The Keystone XL Pipeline would be a great boost to the economy. In addition to adding tens of thousands of jobs and decreasing the unemployment rate significantly, the tens of thousands of people who are employed would have more money to spend, and when they do spend more money, they make a greater contribution to overall GDP. In addition to that, there is 7 billion spent on GDP and 5 billion in annual land fees, so there is an additional contribution to GDP. But most importantly, it would lower gas prices by having a big supply of oil in America, away from highly overpriced Middle Eastern Oil. With that, individuals and companies can spend less on gas and the individuals would be able to spend more, increasing GDP and companies would be able to have a larger profit, lowering prices and allowing the company to expand, which increases GDP initially and overtime and decreases unemployment.
Whether or not college athletes should get paid

I accept. Since my opponent hasn't set any rules for the debate and my opponent used somewhat of an argument, I will also post an argument. For times sake, I will post an argument I made from another debate I have had on this subject.For this round, I will only show my arguments to be fair. Argument Number One: Many people claim that college athletes deserve to be paid. However, they are already receiving thousands of dollars that cover their tuition, fees, and room and board. Most college athletes get a large scholarship or perhaps even a full scholarship to the school where they play their sport. Plus, they receive special dining benefits. They are already receiving tuition discounts that many non-athletes have to pay themselves. They are essentially already being paid, which means that a salary for playing a sport should not exist. Argument Number Two: When you go to college, the college isn't there for you; you are there for the college. The primary objective of going to a college is to get a higher education and learn things that will help you get into the career field of your choice. You should not be paid to go to college, simply because you play a sport. An education is payment enough. Argument Number Three: Sports are a huge part of college extracurricular activities. However, there are other types of extracurricular activities in college. There are various clubs, honor societies, and organizations in college. While paying college athletes to play sports would benefit the athletes, it would also be unfair to people in other clubs/organizations that work just as hard as athletes, but still wouldn't be paid. Therefore, to keep things fair, college athletes should not be paid. Argument Number Four: Most colleges are non-for-profit, meaning that all money that the college takes in goes back into investing in the school (programs, paying professors, etc.). Of course, paying student athletes would take up a large chunk of the money that colleges can spend in any given year. That would potentially cause clubs, organizations, classes, majors, and other things to be cut. The cost of paying student athletes is greater than the gain from paying student athletes. Therefore, paying athletes wouldn't be wise economically. Conclusion: I have given four solid reasons why paying a salary to college athletes isn't a good idea.
Useless coincidence contest

In Monza, Italy, King Umberto I, went to a small restaurant for dinner, accompanied by his aide-de-camp, General Emilio Ponzia- Vaglia. When the owner took King Umberto’s order, the King noticed that he and the restaurant owner were virtual doubles, in face and in build. Both men began discussing the striking resemblances between each other and found many more similarities.1. Both men were born on the same day, of the same year, (March 14th, 1844).2. Both men had been born in the same town.3. Both men married a woman with same name, Margherita.4. The restauranteur opened his restaurant on the same day that King Umberto was crowned King of Italy.5. On the 29th July 1900, King Umberto was informed that the restauranteur had died that day in a mysterious shooting accident, and as he expressed his regret, he was then assassinated by an anarchist in the crowd.