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

ConclusionPeople become fat mostly as a result of being lazy, overeating and adopting a negative belief such as feminism. Feminists push for fat acceptance to spread hate which causes more people to seek comfort in food and many to be proud of being fat and living an unhealthy lifestyle. Accepting their lie that obese women are attractive is a mistake, obese parents usually have unhealthy children. If men do not voice their opinion more women will become fat, especially if we end up having manniquins in their size (which they want to feel better about theirself) so the next generation have no aspiration to fit into a smaller dress or look pretty. Fat shaming women does not increase the number of obese women, but it can deter healthy women from being unhealthy. Although fat feminists may put on more weight having been fat shamed, this is because of their negative attitude towards men and not because a small minority of men fat shame. The few men who do fat shame have a right to be angry and disgusted, as obesity costs Britain £47bn a year and does not just damage the health of those who overeat e.g. we may lose the NHS.Negative motivation is necessary, it can help someone to realize their problem and do something about it like seek professional advice when they are not motivated by enjoyment or pleasure. Allowing fat feminists to believe they are attractive only stops women doing something about their health problem. Fat shamers (or someone who fat shames once) are not cowards or bullies, they are being cruel to be kind! It is important to be able to share our opinions when they affect us. We need to stop obesity by tackling feminism therefore it is okay to fat shame women.Thanks for debating this topic with me
It's Okay to Fat Shame Women

I'm glad you accepted, as I enjoyed the last debate we had. I'll make a start. If no-one shamed fat women then more women would, because of feminists and their "fat is beautiful" (fat acceptance) movements, believe that men actually find fat bodies attractive.This would lead to much more women having health problems. Most men are attracted to women who look healthy, expressing disgust is also natural. Why should a man say nothing i.e. agree with the harmful lies feminists make about what he finds attractive. He might not want to be thought of as one of those sick guys who experience erotic pleasure from feeding a partner, making her so fat she can't wear clothes or go anywhere. Most women who are fat are this way due to being lazy, overeating and hating men. They cost Britain nearly £47bn a year (that's more than the war on terrorism). [1] A third of hospitals or more in NHS could go bust as a result [2] which unfairly affects those who chose a healthy lifestyle. Yet feminists continue to want everyone to believe that fat shamers are selfish cowards who like to bully others, even though bullies are never cruel to be kind.Home cooking was turned into a symbol of drudgery by second-wave feminists. Feminists are no doubt responsible for the obesity epedemic. Fat shamers are not to blame. Women are still generally in favour of feminism which is why this problem persists. If fat women are not shamed we will have fat manniquins etc, and the next generation will not bother to lose weight in order to fit into a smaller dress. Thanks for readingsources[1] http://www.theguardian.com......[2] http://www.express.co.uk......
The Sweden Democrats are xenophobic, racist. and-immigration

This will be a debate on whether the Sweden Democrats are a xenophobic, racist, and anti-immigration group as claimed by the mainstream Swedish media.RulesNo semanticsNo trollingNo kritiksetc. Debate StructureRound 1: Pro's argumentsRound 2: Con's arguments and Pro's rebuttalsRound 3: More arguments and rebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and briefely describing why you did better than the opponent, and deserve the vote. Definitions Sweden Democrats: A right-wing political party in Sweden lead by Jimmie ÅkessonRacism: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Anti-immigration: Opposition to immigration as believing immigration is inheretly badXenophobia: Fear of people from other countries
Christianity

Since most Christians don't know the full definition of athiesm, I feel it is right to say this; athiesm is a lack of belief of a god or gods, normally confused as a religion or satanism. THE CONCEPT OF GOD - I see no reason to consider yourself as a slave. (maybe because The Bible condones slavery; "Exodus 21:20: If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.") Have you heard the paradox: if god can do anything, can he make a rock he can't hold? When god said "let there be light", where's the light source? I doesn't matter what god is capable of, that's logically impossible. CLOSURE QUESTION - How long until god wakes up? Why does poverty, disease, war, etc, still exist?
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

This debate essentially boils down to three arguments. UTILITARIANISM- Utilitarianism is indeed morally permissible. First, morality is dependent upon the society. If a society supports utilitarianism, it is moral within that society. My quote from John Stuart Mill shows that justice, my value, is founded in utilitarianism. Also, as my opponent has conceded, societies tend to espouse utilitarian ideals, making them moral. Utilitarianism achieves my value of justice. My opponents examples of genocide are illegitimate, as they don't reflect a utilitarian outcome. . http://en.wikipedia.org... HUMAN LIFE- I have warranted that the value of human life is finite. My opponent merely states that it is, in fact, finite. He fails to warrant this, and therefore, is not successfully negating it. My point stands. Two lives are of greater value than one. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY- A government is responsible for protecting its people. Its failure to do so, not through inability, but through decision, is, in fact a failure of this responsibility. Therefore, the government is equally guilty in failing this responsibility, as in killing an innocent. "it's possible for the others to not be saved! " The resolution presumed that the others are saved. It merely asks whether this act is morally permissible. I strongly urge a vote in the Proposition of this resolution.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

Please note these dropped points. I have adressed all debated points, and would note that you present no Con arguement. 1. Utilitarianism acheived justice. Absolute justice can never be acheived, because, within the context of the resolution, not everyone is capable of recieving their due. However, with utilitarianism, the maximal number of persons recieve their due. Hence, a more just outcome is acheived. 2. You said yourself that the actual value of human life is not quantifiable. Human life is of a finite, and significant value. I have demonstrated this, and you have failed to negate this. 3. If a witness to a murder fails to act through moral desicion, not out of fear of consequences or the like, but out of choice, they are indeed responsible for the victim's death. We are speaking about a society, which is not affected by consquences similar to that of the witness, and for all practical resolutional purposes, has complete power. 4. I am merely demonstrating that utalitarianism is a commonly accepted societal value. Be it again noted that my opponent has no case, and therefore cannot win this debate.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

Thank you for the debate Now, lets go onto your value of justice and your approach of utility. 1) You have dropped so many arguments, that you basically agree with my entire stance on the subject matter. Your value is of justice which you say is basically everyone getting their due. Yet you have failed to explain what the innocent person does to recieve his due punishment of death. You're condeming someone to a harsher fait than even the most dangerous of criminals don't get the majority of the time (murderers and rapist getting the death penalty). Then you attempt to justify your actions by using the approach of utility. You have failed to address my argument on this so I'll repost it and I would like for it to be the first thing you address and try to explain. UTILITARIANISM WILL NEVER WORK UNLESS YOU CONSIDER HUMAN RIGHTS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T HAVE 10 WOLVES AND 2 SHEEP VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR DINNER. WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE. Is that agreed? 2) The value of human life is equal to the fact that it is unmeasurable. You can't just claim life has a value, but then not say what that value is. If you can not tell me the value of human life, drop this argument. You can't attempt to make human life a giant math problem. If you attempt to, your actions will NEVER be justified. 3) How does it differ from a witnes sto a murder? If you choose inaction, then you simply whitness the horrifying event take place. If you witness a murder, you simply witness a horrifying event. Where does the difference set in? 4) Lets cut out number four and combine it with number 1.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

The hypothetical example is entirely unnecessary; the resolution itself is fairly self-explanatory. Value Criterion: Utilitarianism does achieve justice, and indeed, is the foundation of justice. Lee, in 2000, elaborates with a description on John Stuart Mill's philosophy. "First, he argues that social utility governs all moral elements in the notion of justice. The two essential elements in the notion of justice are: punishment, and the violation of another's rights. Punishment results from a combination of revenge and collective social sympathy. As a single entity, revenge has no moral component, and collective social sympathy is equal to social utility. Violation of rights is also derived from utility, as rights are claims that one has on society to protect us. Thus, social utility is the only reason society should protect us. Consequently, both elements of justice are based on utility." Contention 1: My "value of a statistical life" seems to have been misunderstood. I am not establishing the value of a human life, but merely demonstrating that governments perceive this value as finite. My primary point is human life has a value, and that value is finite. This still stands. One must assume that all human lives involved are equal. Contention 2: I poorly stated this in the first round. My intended meaning was, that, if a government has the ability to choose between two lives, or between the lives of an individual and a group, merely reinforcing the status quo is not a legitimate form of moral justification. In this situation, the deciding party is not required to take any action, but only to issue a command, which differs widely from the situation of a witness to a murder. The word "murder" was poorly chosen. I am merely stating that the deciding party has essentially caused the deaths of those it fails to save. Contention 3: This is addressed in the criterion section. Thank you.
The New Slavery in America

That is a very insightful counter to my assertion. I applaud you for being candid in your response. I suppose I must concede that the work performed in America is to a large extent voluntary. I would say however that the will of survival is without option, and it is on this basis that employees have been manipulated, both by political leadership and by employers. We serve a supposed free market based upon the effects of competition, yet the voice of the small business owner is left unheeded, and the largest voice heralding the need for a loosening of restraints in the interest of increasing competition is that of monopolies. What appears to be freedom is a predetermined course for the most part. The largest recipient of the labor of the common man is the Federal Government via the tax system, which has mutated far beyond the borders of it's original constitutional intent to form a lucrative enterprise. The means by which sound leadership is exercised is the upholding of responsibility. However, our leaders demand accountability and a weight of responsibility they could never dream of being under the sentence of. It is upon this premise that I claim disparity between the leaders, and the led.
The New Slavery in America

I hope I am engaging this correctly. Legal slavery in the US is dead. Are there a few cases of forced labor at the threat of violence or blackmail? Yes, but these cases are rare and are typically handled by the justice system. With that being said the only thing that exists in the US with any significance is ironically the opposite of slavery. In times of old, people were taken from their homes and were threatened with force to produce labor. Today people stand in lines, go to agencies, find websites, and send in applications to find work. If they were offered their freedom, it would be one of the worst fates they could face. The work is voluntary, and people agree to it because it is better than the alternative. Everyone from people at Taco Bell to the workers picking their tomatoes are engaged in voluntary labor. Now we may be tempted to equate some of this hard work to slavery but to do so is a mistake. The people working in these jobs may not be happy now but with the work experience obtained in these jobs come new skills, and new opportunities to advance. You do not need to look far to find examples of people who have left a job to find a better one. And even those who do not progress are better off here than they would be anywhere else. The worst job in the US is better than no job or even the same job in Central America.
14 year olds should be automatically tried as adults

2 points: 1. It is logically and immorally inconsistent to treat someone as a child but then make suffer penalties in life based on them having the knowledge and experience of an Adult 2. Experience - Brain development is insignificant/irrelevent compared to experience. I am developed enough as a man to fly a plane but if you leave me alone in the cockpit i will kill us all. I don't have the knowledge and experience to fly that plane. Knowledge and experience of flying a plane over a period of time allows us to obtain the necessary certificates to fly (in a sense we have matured as pilots) - knowledge and experience of the legal system or morality etc is granted to us by achieving the required age limit - what society defines as a mature or 'adult' age.
14 year olds should be automatically tried as adults

I did say that 14 year olds should be treated like adults in other aspects, but I want to debate specifically being tried as an adult. Brain researchers B. J. Casey and Kristina Caudle stated that when no emotional cues (when we are required to make decisions in the heat of the moment) are present, teens are better than adults at controlling themselves. [1] While lots of crimes involve emotional cues, it's no different for teens because adults are held responsible for their actions.It"s true that the prefrontal cortex is still developing in teens, but it is not defective. Just before puberty, research has found the brain experiences a burst of neuronal growth to provide for a period of pruning before adulthood. During the important adolescent stage of development, prefrontal connections are far from absent [1]. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors, and thus should be held accountable the same way adults are.An argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that a teen might not know what is legal and what is illegal. I will counter this by asking what 14 year old does not know shoplifting from a store is illegal and will land them in jail? And should we give less accountability to people new to the US or visiting the US who may not know all of our laws?Another argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that their Amygdala is overactive. This can lead to 1 emotion being twice as strong than normal, which can lead teens to relying too much on emotions and thus acting impulsive. I will refute this arguing this can happen to adults as well [2]. Should adults who experience this be treated like juveniles?There is a lot of mature matter in the 14 year old brain, sufficient enough to examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors. This means that 14+ year olds should automatically be tried as adults.Do I think 14 year olds should be treated like adults in other aspects? Yes but I will not be debating those other aspects. ___________________ 1 https://www.sacklerinstitute.org... 2 http://www.psychologytoday.com...
14 year olds should be automatically tried as adults

Brain researchers B. J. Casey and Kristina Caudle stated that when no emotional cues (when we are required to make decisions in the heat of the moment) are present, teens are better than adults at controlling themselves. [1] While lots of crimes involve emotional cues, it's no different for teens because adults are held responsible for their actions.It"s true that the prefrontal cortex is still developing in teens, but it is not defective. Just before puberty, research has found the brain experiences a burst of neuronal growth to provide for a period of pruning before adulthood. During the important adolescent stage of development, prefrontal connections are far from absent [1]. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors, and thus should be held accountable the same way adults are.An argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that a teen might not know what is legal and what is illegal. I will counter this by asking what 14 year old does not know shoplifting from a store is illegal and will land them in jail? And should we give less accountability to people new to the US or visiting the US who may not know all of our laws?Another argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that their Amygdala is overactive. This can lead to 1 emotion being twice as strong than normal, which can lead teens to relying too much on emotions and thus acting impulsive. I will refute this arguing this can happen to adults as well [2]. Should adults who experience this be treated like juveniles? There is a lot of mature matter in the 14 year old brain, sufficient enough to examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors. This means that 14+ year olds should automatically be tried as adults.Do I think 14 year olds should be treated like adults in other aspects? Yes but I will not be debating those other aspects.___________________1 https://www.sacklerinstitute.org...2 http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Hitler was a Socialist

I accept your challenge. The BoP is on you, as you are the affirmer to a proponent (although i will provide a fiat). I look forward to a good debate on the issue. I'd also like to point out that, for all judges involved, that one of the topics is the quality of sources, not the quantity. So the fact that my opponent provided 10 definitions loosely linked to a word does not constitute as 10 high quality citations.Also, as per the common usage and per the political compass[1], to seperate anarchistic communism and fascist communism (using two extreme examples), I refer to the oxford dictionary definition[2] which states socialism is:"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."and comes with the disclaimer of "The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however , it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy"Which, in layman's terms, means that it only necessarily requires a restricted market system: that is, it only requires a market dynamic, not a governmental one.http://www.stevetierney.org...;http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Hitler was a Socialist

Defintions; (n) socialist (a political advocate of socialism) (adj) socialist (advocating or following the socialist principles) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) communism (a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) nationalism (the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) socialist economy (an economic system based on state ownership of capital) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) state socialism (an economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) state capitalism (an economic system that is primarily capitalistic but there is some degree of government ownership of the means of production) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (n) capitalist economy (an economic system based on private ownership of capital) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
If not for her husband, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a prime contender for the Democratic nomination.

First, Bill wouldn't have been in office if it weren't for Hillary. Although Bill does have a way with the masses, Hillary has and would have driven up political clout without Bill. With the books that she has written about her past and her term as first lady, she has opened up to the people and has caught their attention. Furthermore, Bill has been hindering Hillary's political growth with all of the allegations set against him. Although few of them have been proven to be him, they still carry burden. Furthermore, Hillary was a graduate of Yale University and majored in political science at Wellesly College before ever meeting up with Bill in Arkansas. But let's go further back than her college career, although it may not seem like it effects todays realm of politics, Hillary was an active participant in Girl Scouts, Student Council, National Honors Society, and (my favorite) debate! She has had her own independent drive for politics that would have propelled her to the top with or without Bill. And, during Bill's presidency, Hillary took her own initiatives to make changes in the United States by herself. All of these facts leads to the underlying understanding that Hillary is a very determined woman who will fight for what she wants and if she wants to make it to the top, she will.