BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the world was run by women, our civilization would reach stagnation.

Regards, As Pro has requested an overview of background here, I will list my basic academic achievements and current educational status; my A-levels are in Biology, Chemistry, English, Maths and Sociology--and I am currently a medical student. I used to have a keen interest in politics but this has lessened somewhat; these days I mostly just follow news on healthcare, education and science. Anyway, as Con I will be arguing against the resolution: if the world was run by women, our civilization would reach stagnation. I will use various medical, psychological and sociological sources for my case. Given that this debate is five rounds, I figured that it would be best to use this round for acceptance/overview and then proceed to opening arguments, rebuttals, and closing arguments respectively, so as to maintain some structure.
If the world was run by women, our civilization would reach stagnation.

I know the title sounds as if the debater is a troll, but I am not. If you look at my profile and my debates, you will see that I am a serious debater. I will start with my educational background and resources. My Background: A-Level psychology Business management bsc Various popular psychology books 33 years of life Experience Most of my resources rely on: The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine Psychology for A2 Level by Michael W. Eysenck, Cara Flanagan Gender differences documentaries I want the debater to post a similar post, describing himself and the resources that he will use. It is a 5 round debate and Max character per post, so I would invest more time if the debater is good or is serious to challenge me.
The Big Bang Theory Never Happened

Lol! Thanks! Good luck to you too! Case 1: Where did all our elements come from? Our neighboring planets do not have even half the elements we have on earth today. How can science explain that. We would have to have so many different neighboring planets. More than our solar system can possibly imagine! Case 2: Things the Big Bang Theory got wrong. http://rense.com... If you read this link, any atheist will convert to a religion that involves god. It proves that elements like dark matter, dark energy, and inflation anyone has ever observed. The density is greatly off. Case 3 : Life Life would not be here, even if the Big Bang Theory would have happened. Think, all living life on other planets would have died on neighboring planets due to no air, no or frozen water, or not a stable atmosphere! If the cells would have even come from planets, wouldn't they have burnt up in our atmosphere? Case 4: Where did the planets come from. For you to view the big bang theory possible, it is more than likely you do not believe in god. Without god, how did the planets come to be? How did all the elements come to be? There is too much the Big Bang Theory can not explain! Thank you for your time. BOP is on me! Which means, you have to prove most or everything I say wrong! Good luck!
The Big Bang Theory Never Happened

My opponent already conceded so I keep the final argument short. 1. I have shown, without a doubt, that the TV series "The Big Bang Theory" happened. 2. The "Big Bang" is a theory about the early stages of the universe that is widely accepted within the scientific communities.My opponent had some arguments against it like "where do the elements come from?" and "what about dark matter?".But he never articulated why these questions would undermine the assertion that the Big Bang happened.3. My opponent suggests that the Big Bang theory is not compatible with religion, but nothing is further from the truth.The Big Bang Theory was first formulated by Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest. Even Pope Pius XII declared that the BigBang theory is compatible with the Catholic faith.
The Big Bang Theory Never Happened

When I accepted the challenge, I could not know what PRO meant with "The Big Bang Theory", because it was not defined.The TV series "The Big Bang Theory" is more popular than the theory of the Big Bang (according to Google), so it is not unreasonable to win the debate by showing that the TV series "The Big Bang Theory" did indeed happen. I understand that it is not PRO'sintention to refute this.PRO: "Where did the atoms come from?"This is by a process called Nucleosynthesis. It is explained here.http://www.einstein-online.info..."Nuclear physics in an expanding universe As the universe cools, the matter content changes - new particles are formed out of the preexisting ones, such as protons and neutrons forming out of quarks. From about one second to a few minutes cosmic time, when the temperature has fallen below 10 billion Kelvin, the conditions are just right for protons and neutrons to combine and form certain species of atomic nuclei. This phase is called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis." (I already provided this link before. I just copied and pasted a small part of it.)PRO: "You also failed to refute we would needed dark matter that no one has observed to render it possible."As the Big Bang theory grows, and we try to explain more and more with it, the theory itself also needs to be refined. "Dark matter" is indeed used to explain some of the observations. But:"It should be noted that dark matter was not invoked simply as a “fudge factor” to rescue the Big Bang from perceived difficulties. "http://www.icr.org...(BTW: I think the spell-checker accidentally changed "Lemaitre" into "Limiter" in a second round. My apologies. For S&G, this should cancel out with the highlighted grammar mistake of my opponent.)
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers

My opponent holds a strong argument topics that have backing, evidence and so much more... I can only tell you if you were obese like many americans and many british people as my opponent clearly states in round three. would you want to be sent off to a rehabilitation workhouse for some that is the way, but for many they learn the hard yet difficult. I can offer you so much wisdom on one subject and I really hope it is convincing you that pro's topics are sort of impossible. I am honored to have been apart of this topic and hope to become more knowledgeable and once more go up on this or a different one, but until then i wish him luck... and I hope you took my few short simple lines into consideration of the heart. Thank you!
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers

Many thanks to my opponent for her continued interest in this subject. With Britain now having one of the highest rates of obesity in the world, the problem has now become one of widespread debate in the general population. Firstly, it should be accepted that overeating is an addiction and obese people deserve proper medical help to overcome their cravings for food, just in the same way as a drug user might be trated for their addiction.. However, just as junkies that refuse treatment, or relapse, face mandatory rehabilitation, usually involving incarceration within a secure environment, so this same principle applies to obese people who persistently refuse to address their weight problem. This is not punishment, it is assistance for those people who damage their health and cost the taxpayers fortunes as a result. My opponent went on to quote Prof. Jane Wardle who said that parents shouldn't be held totally responsible for their children's excessive weight. I'm not a medical practitioner, as I already admitted, but it would appear to me that overweight kids' parents should be held to account. After all, where do the children get the food (or the money for food) from? Perhaps if they steal it, the parents may have an excuse, but if they are knowingly feeding them too much junk food, isn't that child cruelty? Wouldn't' a mum that plied her kids with alcohol or a dad that bought his kids crack be punished? Her final quote from Tam Fry reinforces my argument by suggesting that even with a gene predisposing one to obesity were to be identified, becoming overweight is not inevitable provided one leads a healthy lifestyle. In other words, becoming obese, or addicted to drugs or taking up a life in crime are matters of personal choice. In society, we have rights but also responsibilities, to ourselves and to others and if we neglect our responsibilities, we should expect to receive help in order to rehabilitate ourselves back into society, whether that is through prison for drug offenders or the workhouse for the obese. Thank you.
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers

I fully understand my opponents points, my reply would be that YES. Most of the people who or maybe morbidly obese, yes are Freaking huge because they eat a ton or don't work or just sit there i will not deny you that because then i will be lying on the facts. But also wouldn't you think that the people you so call needing "rehabilitated into society through a work-house based program. " Shouldn't they be able to just say 'NO! Yes we would all have better health, dignity, self-esteem. But my opponent fails to explain to you what these three things are. Self-Esteem: self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, "I am competent/incompetent") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution). . http://en.wikipedia.org... dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect; "it was beneath his dignity to cheat"; "showed his true dignity when under pressure" Health: a healthy state of wellbeing free from disease; "physicians should be held responsible for the health of their patients" . http://www.google.com... As my second standing point doctors have said that it is possible and has been proven that obesity is majorly caused by a genetic issue my evidence stand with: "It is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility" -Professor Jane Wardle University College London " Even if someone has a gene which predisposes them to obesity, it doesn't mean they will become obese if they work hard to eat healthily" Tam Fry Child Growth Foundation . http://news.bbc.co.uk...
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers

I should also like to apologise to my opponent for not expressing myself clearly enough. I seems she has erroneously formed the impression that my scheme is somehow intended to punish unemployed people who are overweight. My goodness me, no! On the contrary, nothing could be further from the truth! My idea is that economically-inactive obese citizens should be rehabilitated into society through a workhouse-based programme of diet and exercise that will enable the participants to regain their health, dignity, self-esteem and, most importantly, their social standing through loosing weight and eventually obtaining paid employment. In relation to my opponent's claim that people do not, as a rule, become overweight through being lazy and greedy, as I may have implied in the opening round, rather that it has something to do with genetic disorders and metabolism, I can only say that since I am not a doctor, I will not presume to contradict her. However, I will make the following observation: these medical conditions only seem to effect people in the West. I mean, you don't see too many obese people in places like Sudan, do you? I mean lok at them… . http://www.bbc.co.uk... They don't know how lucky they are, do they? Here we are, in the West, sending these grasping bloodsuckers aid when we could be spending that money on stuffed-crust mega-supreme meat-feast super-deluxe pizzas for ourselves. But how often do they send us money to spend on medical research so that we can discover why Westerners are so pre-disposed to obesity? Never! The bunch of miserable ingrates! I must say, I fully accept my opponent's final point that people who want to be obese should be free to be so, with the following caveat – provided they earned the money to pay for the food themselves. If not, they're going straight to the WORKHOUSE.
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers

First of all what someone eats or consumes orally is none of your concern unless it is you. I find that the Pro side does not understand the meaning of morbidly obese.. Yes, sometimes it is a choice, But sometimes it is a genetic disorder.. that is why I find the pro side has forgotten some of the facts. My second point, being Morbidly obese people have slower metabolism and probably are having a hard time to give up some of there acquired habits.. it takes some people a little longer of time to adjust to some new changes and who are you to tell them they are wrong to be slow. My third standing point would have to stand with the quality of freedom, freedom meaning making your own choices.. no one else can choose your weight or anything else that means physical body features. Me being a bigger person feel the hatred in this argument against larger people but I promise you they more then likely look at your beautiful tiny women and men and want that alone, and when you put them down just like in this argument saying blaspheme words towards them.. They re-think that decision in fear that they will become what they fear and that is mean, crude and most of all a hating person like pro. Thank you!
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers

You see them all the time, don't you? Big, fat, sweating piles of flab sitting in fast food restaurants, gorging themselves on super-sized burgers while everybody else is out earning the money to pay for them. "No, I'm to fat to work" they say, "I'm morbidly obese and I get out of breath just walking to my Government-subsidised car". So, instead of going out and earning an honest wage like everybody else, they slob about in junk food outlets. And when they haven't got their snouts in the trough, they are filling out their Income Support, (1) Housing Benefit, (2) Council Tax Benefit (3) and Disability Living Allowance (4) claim forms. All this is in addition, of course, to free health care. But do they care that fat people cost the National Health Service billions of Pounds every year? (5) No, of course not. They think the world owes them a living. Well I'm here to say that it doesn't. Its high time the British Government turned round to these corpulent spongers and snarled "Right, enough is enough, you freeloading fat f*****s; you've taken the p**s out of decent, hardworking taxpayers for too long – it's the workhouse for the lot of you." Yes, that's right. It's time to bring back the workhouse for those indolent, overweight parasites that think the taxpayer has a duty to fund their profligate lifestyles. But wait, I hear you say, I don't want to live next door to a prison for big, fat, stinking wasters - for one thing, it'll bring down the value of my property. It's okay, there's no need to fret. These workhouses will be located next to landfill sites, well away from residential housing. The beauty of this idea is that the inmates will earn their keep by sifting through the refuse separating out recyclable items such as cans, bottles and paper. In addition to improving the environment, the benefits of this scheme will be manifold, including making huge savings in state benefit payments and vastly reducing health care costs. Furthermore, since food rations will be meagre (think watery cabbage soup and insipid gruel) and the work on the rubbish dump will be very taxing, the prisoners will quickly lose weight. The good news for them is that once they are back down to a normal size, they will be helped to find a job and, if they are successful, they will be released. I really don't understand why the Government hasn't already thought up this scheme for itself and included it in the Queen's Speech. Perhaps there are some flaws in the plan that I've missed, but I can't think what they might be, so I hereby humbly submit this reasonable and balanced proposal to the House. Thank you. (1) http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk... (2) http://www.dwp.gov.uk... (3) http://www.dwp.gov.uk... (4) http://www.direct.gov.uk... (5) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk...
Making a word definition a reference in a debate turns it into an argument over semantics.

Sky_ace25 has proposed the totally rad new concept of "dropped," or "instantly accepted" definitions! Hey, I have an idea! Let's run with that, and come up with the "instantly accepted" argument! That way, we can just get rid of debating altogether, and spend time nibbling at our instant oatmeal! The recent debate, 'Labeling children as any religious denomination is wrong,' is a great example of the distractions, and confusion that definition references provide. Debaters claimed that "this is not a semantic debate," but in the same breath, kept going back and forth, criticizing each others' word choices. Sky_ace25 said: "If my opponent agrees with this definition then it's clear we can have a debate where we are not arguing over the Semantics." This contradictory statement makes clear that in his constant references to word definitions, Sky_ace25 has turned this into a semantic debate, for his argument is rooted within my agreement or disagreement with his definitions of words. Debate about words if you want to debate about words. That is what Linguistics is for. But a topic worth debating should be sturdy enough to handle simply staying on that topic. When debaters become preoccupied with their dogmatic word-choices, the words become the only things that matter anymore. Thank You. My first debate on debate.org has been quite enjoyable.
Making a word definition a reference in a debate turns it into an argument over semantics.

I will make three arguments and then you may refute them as you wish, thank you in advance for your time C1: Their are many debates that can happen where both people understand the main argument such as scientific debates. People may make word definitions many times just for simple clarification or just to emphasize their point. Many times these an just be used in a way that benefits both people. C2: Their are debates sometimes where one side does not give a definition in a constructive argument and thus the opposing side can propose a definition which is instantly accepted. Thus their is no argument over definition, because essentially the opponent has "dropped" the definition. So in this scenario a reference can be made without semantics. C3: This is obviously pointless unless I offer up a definition to prove my point so I offer up the following definition; I define PRO (which my opponent is) as: (–noun 2. a proponent of an issue; a person who upholds the affirmative in a debate.) http://dictionary.reference.com... a. If my opponent agrees with this definition then it's clear we can have a debate where we are not arguing over the Semantics. b. If my opponent contends this definition as being false or not that meaning then she is basically contradicting herself by not accepting that she is upholding the affirmative of this resolution; hence it could be interpreted that she has changed her mind and decided to also be Con. Thank you for your time and I am looking forward to seeing my opponents refutes.
Making a word definition a reference in a debate turns it into an argument over semantics.

As I have said before, know what the words mean, but also know what you mean. I am not arguing a narrow vocabulary. Let me just ask (once you choose one of the many definitions of semantics) what your interpretation of semantics is? You have given a great example of how definitions are simply attempts to derail the focus of a debate. Playing with words gets the actual debate nowhere. P.S. I am pretty sure that you are capable of finding a definition of semantics on your own. Thank You Sky_ace25.
Making a word definition a reference in a debate turns it into an argument over semantics.

Making a word definition a reference in a debate turns it into an argument over semantics. Definitions are imperfect. Connotations and interpretations of words are ubiquitous. Once Merriam Webster joins a debate, it turns into an argument over the precision of the wording of a definition, and the concept of the argument is lost. Do not get me wrong. Know what the words mean, but also know what you mean.
Alien does exist

"Your claiming on R2 that the organism on the meteorites that was discovered by NASA could have been an "Earth" organism. But based on my research, the complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous micro fossils of cyanobacteria. " You claim to have research but you have provided nothing. "It states that the organism is not a earthly organism but a outer space bacteria because that bacteria can only live beyond this planet which is the outer space. " Since these are scientific claims and not skepticism you have again failed to back up your point with a source which weakens your argument. It is mere speculation that these "ETs" exist without any hard facts to back it up. One source is not nearly enough to prove something as profound as other life out in the universe. "But do you have a proof that there is a such thing as "God"? Lets assume that the bible was written by a popular writer that have wild imaginations long time ago and made a millions copy of his "bible" then sold or distribute to people. " This is an entirely different debate but I do see the point you are attempting to make, but for that point to become useful the proof that God does not exist must be present. Even than in the dawn of the bible it was not made for money or distribution (via printing) due to the fact that neither of those existed during that time. The Pro with lack of evidence to validate his claim is what has defeated him.
Alien does exist

"These claims can only merely be speculated at the moment. Everything is questionable such as this. These meteors that are claimed to have smashed into Earth could have been over come with these organisms while it sat on Earth."Your claiming on R2 that the organism on the meteorites that was discovered by NASA could have been an "Earth" organism. But based on my research, the complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous micro fossils of cyanobacteria. It states that the organism is not a earthly organism but a outer space bacteria because that bacteria can only live beyond this planet which is the outer space.And you claimed to have a religious counter."11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.Genesis 6:11-14"But do you have a proof that there is a such thing as "God"? Lets assume that the bible was written by a popular writer that have wild imaginations long time ago and made a millions copy of his "bible" then sold or distribute to people.
Alien does exist

"That meteorite came from the outer space that have some organism, which prove that Aliens are real." These claims can only merely be speculated at the moment. Everything is questionable such as this. These meteors that are claimed to have smashed into Earth could have been over come with these organisms while it sat on Earth. "does not exist in this planet." A lot of creatures and organisms in this planet have yet to be uncovered especially those in the Ocean. I may also use the Religious counter to your claim; 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Genesis 6:11-14