BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools should allow their students to cite, at the very least, Wikipedia's Featured Articles

Section 1: I'd like to point that my opponent has helped me in my debate. Wikipedia is easily hacked and anyone can change anything that they want. This is another reason schools don't use it because obviously, it can change within minutes of actually using that same information. Section 2: I'd also like tok point out that he's also helping me in my point of view by claiming that all the information on wikipedia is unbiased. In other words, he says that all the information on wikipedia is impartial. Either that, or it's not stating things agianst other people or organizations, which this would still be a false statement. http://www.google.com... Section 3: In schools, they teach you to use more than one source. So you'll have to compare other documents with the wikipedia documents, and if they were smart they be able to tell which document is true and which one isn't. Section 4: Another point I'd like to bring up is that wikipedia almost never tells you who posted the document. This is important for students and other people who may be writing an essay while using this information. Without an viable author (reliable informant), the writer's paper may or may not be accepted. Especially in college where it's usually required. Section 5: There is little to no diversity on wikipedia. In other words, you'll get answers that are similar to each other. This falls well into section 3 as well, for this claims that you could compare other wikipedia documents on the same topic, it would make it even more unreliable. Again, this would leave the writer in a jam. To help further my case, the majority of the users who post things to wikipedia are 26 year old male, who are grad students who want to share their knowledge, but it keeps getting changed. This brings us back to section 1. And if they aren't hacking then obviously, the writers/publishers of the information don't know how to protect their own work. To make matters worse, the modified information can go months before its noticed. It sounds like it should upgrade it's securtiy before they allow schools to use it. http://www.findingdulcinea.com...
Schools should allow their students to cite, at the very least, Wikipedia's Featured Articles

Let's start off with a quick photo: We see here, I try to edit a page, "Debating". Keep in mind that this is merely a regular article, not even "good"! Yet, within just 50 minutes (at least according to Wikipedia time), another user cut off the unnecessary part I added to the page. Obviously, featured articles' changes are far, FAR faster. Today I experimented by editing the first featured article presented alphabetically, the 7 world Trade Center article. In only four minutes (the time is awry), this dude managed to revert my edit. We see here, definitely, that Wikipedia cannot be edited by untrustworthy or non-credible people. Now, why are Wikipedia's featured articles trustworthy? Well, many many editors have to look over it. They have to make sure it is as non-biased as possible, providing the broadest information on the topic, and with many, many, MANY non-biased sources supporting it. https://en.wikipedia.org...;Only 0.1% of Wikipedia's articles are Featured. They are the best of the best. Again, just look at the 7 world trade center article [http://en.wikipedia.org...], it has pictures showing the outside and the inside, blueprints of the trade center, a map of it, everything from the architect to building status, this featured article has it all. Not only so, 101 sources support this article. It cannot be refuted; wikipedia's featured articles are too darn trustworthy. A site even claims Wikipedia being more trustworthy than the the Encyclopedia Britannica. " a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute." The site states. And while this source does complain a little about the band page, it certainly isn't a top-priority Featured Article. We see here, Wikipedia is professional. Everyone can edit it, but few get through useful edits. Schools should allow students to cite Wikipedia as a source, and the featured articles are the bottom line.
Promiscuity is ethical

First of all, I would like to point out to my opponent that the definition of promiscuity I established in my first post, i.e. “the act of engaging in consensual sexual activity with different people during a given period”, is not reducible to only “one-night stands.” Examples such as polyamory (which differentiate itself from polygamy, see [1]) are included in the above definition. It is only courtesy that my opponent keeps the above definition throughout the debate.My opponent affirms that promiscuity “entails a shroud of deceit.” She probably ignores that members of the polyamory community define themselves as having non-exclusive relationships with knowledge and consent of everyone involved. That is, deceit of other relationships is ruled out.Besides, my opponent is kind enough to offer examples of deceit, but fails to prove not only that all promiscuous activity leads to deceit, but more importantly that it is promiscuity itself that is the cause of and fosters the alleged deceit: all of my opponent’s examples of lies could be put in the mouth of a non-promiscuous person. Promiscuity is therefore not affected by my opponent’s arguments.Similarly, my opponent draws a link between STD and promiscuity, and concludes that promiscuity is intrinsically unethical because it causes deaths. I am sure she would similarly consider unethical the entire forces of police and army in possession of a gun, on the ground that gun ownership is linked with gun deaths [2]; or that owning a car is unethical, because car ownership is directly linked to car accidents.What my opponent fails to see is that it is not because a wrongdoing is linked to an action, that the action itself is wrong. Such a logic flaw can be clearly exposed if, by altering the circumstances of the action (for a promiscuous person, passing from unsafe to safe sex, and getting regularly tested for STD), one can significantly reduce the wrongdoing (STD transmission). A simple question, by the way: in my opponent’s opinion, what is more likely to cause a spread of STD, more sex, or more unprotected sex? The first is promiscuity, the second, bad hygiene. My point holds that bad hygiene, not promiscuity, is the main factor of STD spread.In conclusion, my opponent has:1) failed to support her first two arguments, never explaining how promiscuity could foster deceit or frivolous relations;2) made use of fallacious logic to support her second argument.After drawing a list of unsupported claims (promiscuity often leaves people dissatisfied, is an addiction...), my opponent displays misunderstanding of my thesis. For the sake of clarity, let me state it once again: promiscuity is ethical, because it is not intrinsically unethical. It is not intrinsically unethical because it does not necessarily cause more sufferings than pleasure. My opponent’s job is to prove that, in all and every case, promiscuity leads to more sufferings than pleasure.So far, my opponent has been unable to do so.Thank you.---Sources:---[1] https://www.morethantwo.com...[2] http://www.businessinsider.com...[3] http://rhrealitycheck.org...
Promiscuity is ethical

1) Pro's quote: "promiscuity doesn't necessarily involve lying and deceit." Rebuttal to pro's argument: Key-word "necessarily". The truth is a promiscuous lifestyle entails a shroud of deceit. In the majority of cases it promotes dishonesty from both parties involved. One could be lying about their work, embellishing their status. The other could lie about being single, or worse, equivocate having an STD. The assumption is that after a one-night stand the partner will never be wiser to know the truth. My argument stands, a promiscuous lifestyle fosters unethical lies. 2) Pro: "It is very possible to imagine a man who develop a lasting and caring relationship with two persons at the same time" I rather focus on promiscuity as involving many sexual partners; I believe polygamy extends past the scope of this debate. After all, "developing a lasting and caring relationship" is very much contrary to the idea of a one-night stand. 3) Pro: "it is not promiscuity but bad hygiene habits that cause transmission of STD." Pro dogmatizes bad hygiene habits as the isolated cause. "In the last 30 years, due to a dramatic increase in sexual promiscuity, and the fact that 80% of infected persons have no symptoms, there is now a major epidemic of sexually transmitted disease (STD)." Facts in Brief, New York. The Allan Guttmacher Institute, 1993 HIV and AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and cervical cancer have all been linked to promiscuous sexual behavior. This is more than just a correlation as made evident by the following statistic: The first-year failure among typical condom users is 18 percent. (Source: CDC Reproductive Health) Among teens each year there are about 3 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) (Source, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA) The less the media portrays promiscuity as being fashionable; the more of these horrible acts will be prevented. Bad hygiene is only a factor: forgetting to brush your teeth will not get you a STD. Sleeping with A multitude of people, people who have had their own share of one-night stands, will surely increase your chances of getting an STD. Even a sanitary utopia would be powerless against human papilloma or herpes simplex virus infections, and other diseases condoms are unable to protect against. My notion is clear, Promiscuity is unethical because it promotes deceit, encourages frivolous relations, and lets propagate the number one cause of death among young people. Pro believes promiscuity is ethical because it causes more pleasure than suffering. I refute his canon, something which so often leaves people dissatisfied and wanting more, must be characterized as such. Promiscuity is an addiction which poses a great risk to one's health, both physically and mentally. The majority of times it is fun, but the term ethical does not encompass promiscuity. I eagerly await Pro's rebuttal.
Promiscuity is ethical

My main belief is that promiscuity is not unethical, in that it doesn't intrinsically cause more sufferings than pleasure. On the contrary, for some people, promiscuity can become an enriching experience, both physically (as one draws sexual pleasure from it) and socially (as one enlarges one's circle of acquaintances). My opponent will have to prove that promiscuity is necessarily causing more sufferings than pleasure. Several arguments might be presented against promiscuity, three of which I will expose and refute: 1) Argument: "Promiscuity involves lying and deceit, and so is unethical". Refutation: first, promiscuity doesn't necessarily involve lying and deceit. Somebody might have several sexual partners that are aware of that person's promiscuity. Secondly, while some people engaging in promiscuity might lie to their partner so as to make them believe that the relationship is exclusive or will last longer than intended, the unethical aspect here does not lie in the act of having multiple sexual partners, but in that of lying and deceiving where one has the alternative option of telling the truth. 2) Argument: "Promiscuity leads one to seek instant gratification without commitment to or care about the partner, impeding the personal development of important values such as respect or compassion, and so is unethical. " Refutation: promiscuity does not necessarily involve the lack of commitment or care about the partner. It is very possible to imagine a man who develop a lasting and caring relationship with two persons at the same time, or to imagine two people meeting at a bar, deciding to have one-night sex while still being respectful of their partner. 3) Argument: "Promiscuity leads to the transmission of sexual transmitted diseases (STD), causing harm to the people infected, and so is unethical. " Refutation: it is not promiscuity but bad hygiene habits that cause transmission of STD. With that respect, a man with STD and practicing sexual exclusivity with the partners he will have in the lapse of a lifetime, but without using condoms, will be more likely to infect his partners, and so will be of less ethical conduct, than a promiscuous man with STD who uses condoms at each and every sexual act. I am ready to refute any other argument advancing that promiscuity is unethical. I now give the floor to my opponent.
Promiscuity is ethical

First-timer here, I'm trying out of curiosity. I would like to debate against the idea that promiscuity is unethical. While the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "Promiscuity" includes "immorality," I would like to take the following, more neutral definition: "the act of engaging in consensual sexual activity with different people during a given period." Let us arbitrarily agree that the given period range up to one month. My opponent will have to present arguments supporting that promiscuity is intrinsically unethical. Hoping for a good debate!
Affirmative action is warranted, yet, not equivalent to reparations for slavery.

Affirmative action is a system that was designed to counteract the various prejudices, biases and shortcomings that have been proven to exist in the current system. Though commonly mistaken as solely for melaninated people, affirmative action makes exceptions and allowances for many different groups of people. [i.e. handicapped, women, etc.] Shared BoP Opponent must show how affirmative action is an unwarranted policy that aids only melaninated individuals. Opponent must also prove how affirmative action policies are equivalent to reparations for slavery.
Affirmative action is warranted, yet, not equivalent to reparations for slavery.

(Sorry for forfeit, the wifi was down) I will now argue why affirmative actions are equivalent to reparations for slavery. They are equivalent to reparations for slavery, because my opponent argues only melaninated people were part of slavery. I argue that as per the definition of slavery: "Full Definition of SLAVE : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" [1] all disadvantaged people were "enslaved" and so reparations for slavery don't only apply to melaninated people, but to woman, disabled, etc, basically people who at one point in history were treated badly and completely subservient to a dominating influence. So white woman still were at one point considered slaves as per the definition and so it is reparations to slavery. [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Affirmative action is warranted, yet, not equivalent to reparations for slavery.

Women who identify themselves as 'white' actually benefit the most from affirmative action. "While [people of color], individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately." [1] [2] As stated, affirmative action is a policy that is purported to be an attempt to counter the blatant prejudices, biases and shortcomings that have been proven to exist in the current system. However, affirmative action was not ever intended to be any form of reparations for the institution of slavery that was utilized in the U.S..http://ideas.time.com...;[1]http://professorshih.blogspot.com... [2]
Affirmative action is warranted, yet, not equivalent to reparations for slavery.

As stated affirmative action is a system that was designed to counteract the various prejudices, biases and shortcomings that have been proven to exist in the current system. In my opinion, there is really no debate regarding this issue. To win this debate, Con must prove that affirmative action only aids melaninated individuals and is equivalent to reparations for slavery. Though this is a popular notion, it is a complete contradiction of the actual practice of affirmative action. First, I would like to provide a general definition of affirmative action. affirmative action noun 1. (US) a policy or programme designed to counter discrimination against minority groups and women in areas such as employment and education [1]As the definition explains, affirmative action policies can benefit many groups that have been (or continue to be) discriminated against - namely minorities and women. The beneficiaries of affirmative action can also be those who have disabilities. The fact that women and disabled men who identify as 'white' can benefit from affirmative action proves that the policy does not solely benefit melaninated individuals and that it can not be considered to be equivalent to reparations for slavery. I will rest my case and allow my opponent to present his response. . http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]
Feminism

As per the rules of the debate as set by my opponent, this will be my final argument. Since my opponent has failed to formulate a response, I see little need to elaborate much on my previous post. I will merely offer a brief summary of my arguments and this debate as a whole. My opponent claims that feminism is an incorrect argument. While I don't consider feminism an argument, I accepted the debate under these terms so I will argue as such. My opponent has offered nothing but an unsupported opinion regarding what he believes is feminism; a term of which he seems to lack a full understanding. There were no parameters set for this debate in terms of a place in which we were arguing, yet my opponent seems to have focused his argument purely on feminism in the United States. In fact, he basically concedes the debate by stating "in 1st world countries such as the USA, there should be no such thing as a feminist. The same can not be said for 3rd world countries, where women rights have not been established and women often have to be near a man to go anywhere in the city. " Had we focused this debate on USA or first world countries alone, that statement would not be considered a concession, but the fact that we did not specify those terms shows that my opponent agrees that feminism is at least necessary in some places. Now let's ignore the fact that Con conceded the debate already and pretend we were just addressing first world countries. Con offers no sources to show that equality now fully exists, nor does he provide and decent explanation as to why feminism should disappear once success has been found. The fact of the matter is, inequality between the sexes still exists, as I showed in my previous round, and even once equality is reached here, feminism will still be important to help maintain that equality and to help spread the ideology throughout the countries where help is needed. Finally, if my arguments and sources are not enough to convince the reader, the fact that Con has only provided one poorly written paragraph backed by no sources, merely opinions, followed by a forfeited round, should be enough to win me this debate.
Feminism

First off, thank you very much for accepting my argument.Now, to feminism, women often claim that they are given unequal rights, when in the past this is proven, yes. But, throughout time women have received every right that a man has. Women can now join the army. Women can now become president. Women can now vote. The list goes on for a very long time. So, in 1st world countries such as the USA, there should be no such thing as a feminist. The same can not be said for 3rd world countries, where women rights have not been established and women often have to be near a man to go anywhere in the city. However we still find feminists in 1st world countries. In fact, I dare to say that men are the ones who are the subordinate, because in a war, which gender is forced to go because of the deaths of volunteers? Men. Which gender still complains that they are given unequal rights? Women. I agree that radical feminism is a different debate altogether, but normal feminism itself is an extremely incorrect argument.
Feminism

NOTE: I would like for my opponent, Pro, to give textual evidence as to why feminism is a logical and correct argument,Setup:Round 1:Con's SetupPro's Acceptance + Beginning ArgumentsRound 2:Con's Beginning ArgumentsPro's RebuttalRound 3:Con's RebuttalPro's Final WordsRound 4:Con's Final WordsPro says, "This debate is over."'NOTE: Pro, please leave your section for round 4 as I just stated it, "This debate is over.", nothing more.
DDO Win/Loss Record is Detrimental

Con Argument:Extend out my argument that a public win/loss debate record doesn't actually have an overall detrimental effect to the site. A debate record of any kind has no effect on the polls, opinions, and forums sections of the site, meaning 3/4ths of the site is unaffected by the record at the very least. His response is that the harms aren't isolated to the debate section and that I'm not taking "everything into account". First, I'm the only one who could possibly be taking everything into account. His analysis stops dead at the debate section, without even considering the influence of the other sections of the site. My bare analysis of the possible impacts cover the entirety of the site, while his analysis only covers 25% of the site. Turn this against him, I'm fulfilling his definition better than he is. Secondly, he provides no actual warrants to the analogy later on. He just says that if people get noobsniped on their first debate that they'd leave the site before looking at the other sections, but he gives no warrant for why a) this is even true, and b) why this is unique to having a bad first debate, and not for others reasons such as just losing interest in online debating or not having enough time to devote to debating online. He's the one with the BoP, he's not doing anywhere near enough work to fulfill the argument here, so his response falls flat. With that settled, my argument stands clear and unrefuted. I'm definitively showing how the win/loss record doesn't actually negatively affect the site overall by his own definition of overall. This is the easiest place for you to vote con.Now to go to the responses to the aff case. Group both arguments. Neither of his arguments have the slightest bit of an impact to them. Not only has he still provided zero warrant for these arguments other than "it's something he's noticed", not only has he provided no warrant for why these harms are coming from the existence of the win/loss record rather than alternative, outside circumstances, but he's provided no weighing analysis for why these negatives represent an overall harm to the site. I'm the only one making this analysis on my argument, so my argument is outweighing his in scope and impact. You're negating even if you buy his arguments.So this debate breaks down really simply:1. Pro had BoP to prove an overall harm to having a public win/loss record on the entirety of the site. He failed to do this.2. My argument showing how a public win/loss record cannot possibly have an overall harm to the entirety of the site stands, and I'm giving you clear weighing analysis as for why this argument should matter more than his arguments.3. His arguments lack the necessary warrants to show how they're not only true, but unique to a public win/loss record, and he's made no effort to rectify this situation. Hold this against him and drop his arguments.