BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does giving rights to women in India leads to men being discriminated

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory Men are harassed by women by using the recent rights given to them like anti dowry laws, rape laws and social freedom to go to offices. In India,95% of dowry cases are false and you can't sat a "Small cases of Urban elite women misusing laws does not count.".It is believed in India that rape leads to defamation of a women.But what is the defamation faced by victims of false rape case . In India, 50% of rape case are false.Child abuse is another place men has to face discrimination .Research indicates that 52.94% of those abused are boys while 47.06% are girls in India . Still everyone thinks about girls being abused.Recent Help Age Report also confirms : 44% Elder abuse by Daughter-in-Law , 33% by Daughters and 22% by son , still in Media it is always shown the harassment by Men, a desperate attempt to hide the real fact of Harassment to Elders by Daughter-in-law or by Daughter . People say women are smarter than boys, still in India ,women has 1/3 reservation in govt. colleges. They have 1/3 reservation in Parliament and Gram panchayat . Is this equality? The most significant amendment in the bill was made due to our agitation. The bill will now even cover domestic workers who are employed for household work. However, the real challenge is how will this law be implemented.The bill states that it is the employer"s responsibility to provide a healthy environment to women at the workplace because any kind of sexual harassment means violation of human rights.Women get various rights related to their job. They leave before men due to laws and they are not allowed to overtime or under strict conditions . Leading to men doing extra work. Women get maternity leave. And all other benefits and also equal salary .Is it not biasedness? Women in India have an extra benefit in Divorce as they get more share of the assets than man. And men has to give additional maintenance to women who are equal according to laws in India. Women are equal to men . Nowadays, self -capable too but still a maintenance.
Bottled water should be banned

I hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is "too much government. " By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying "I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a "punishment" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1.
Bottled water should be banned

No it shouldn't. That is too much government. People have the right to exchange money for a water bottle. Whether limousine liberals want to ban water bottles, Or conservatives want to ban gay marriage, I am tired of both parties trying to ban same sex marriage I am tired of people like my opponent saying "I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad.
Children should be lied to

"Also, you decided to center the debate on Santa Claus by using that case as your prime example; I gave numerous examples of lies that are told to children and you basically conceded on every point except Santa Claus, so I worked with what I had." I do believe that you created this argument stating " I believe that lying to children, whether in the form of perpetuating silly myths like the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, or by withholding factual answers to their questions about subjects such as sex and death, is bad, primarily for the children themselves but also for society as a whole." So that is what I debated. Also, about how you said whether or not you practiced the tradition was irrelevant, no it is not. It is the same as saying Carrots are gross and I have never even tried them. You should not say that Santa Claus and continuing these traditions is bad if you yourself have not participated in them. I will close with this. My opponent has stated in his opening argument that continuing these traditions was bad for the children. He has yet to prove to me that this is so. Also, my opponent has stated that it is irrelevant whether or not he has practiced these traditions. It is the same as stating that Whole wheat is gross and I've never tired it. My point is, these traditions have continued for centuries. Is it really necessary to stop them just because we maybe "afftected" the children? Are we really "lying to them?" Thank you for the debate.
Children should be lied to

"I would venture to say that all involved are in one way or another." How do you know? When I found out that Santa was not real, I wasn't mad or taught to lie by it. Also, I outgrew the idea. It's like how you outgrow certain phases in life. Also, I am unsure of whether you are fit to be debating on the issue of certain religious practices and traditions if you, yourself, are not religious. As I see from other debates, you seem not to be. Did you believe in Santa when you were young? If so, has it taught you to lie? I for one have not been affected in a negative way by the tradition and I am one who HAS been involved in it. "I must admit I find it amusing, but not surprising, that a Christian would write this. What were you thinking when you wrote that sentence? It is NEVER "acceptable" to lie to a child - and I would think that since one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not lie" that a Christian would, especially for the context of a debate, avoid such a disastrous line of thought. That aside, I must ask: Why is it "acceptable" to lie to a child in this context but not others? Where do you draw the line, and by what criteria?" What I meant by this comment is not that it is acceptable to lie, but what do you really consider to be lying? Is continuing traditions really and truly considered lying? I don't believe that it is. Also, religion should not be a part of this. This is a debate about LYING. I can infer from your other debates that you are not religious, I am sorry if I am not correct, but I also find it funny coming from someone who is not religious to be arguing on religious practices, that you may have not ever even experienced. (Again, I am sorry if I am not correct, but please do correct me if I am wrong.  "-My point exactly. The lie keeps on being perpetuated, leading to more and more ignorance. On a different note, perhaps you should investigate the actual origins of Christmas (I don't mean a baby was born in a barn) sometime since you think continuing these "traditions" is so important. You might be surprised. " Actually, I have researched the actual origins of Christmas, and in fact, it was created to honor the birth of Jesus Christ. The traditions came from this. An old man supposedly came around and placed small items in children's shoes. This is how Santa originated. Although, Santa is neither the meaning for Christmas, nor should it be the main point (about your comment about receiving gifts) it is a tradition that has been continued for centuries. Are you insinuating that we should take away from a person's childhood simply to not take the risk of affecting them by "lying." I believe that my opponent has only come up with an argument that lying to children about things such as Santa, the tooth fairy, etc, is bad for the children and will affect them in many ways. I would love for you to prove this and tell me that this is affecting all the millions of children who follow these traditions and participate in it in a very negative way. I believe that it all depends on if you define "traditions" as lies
Children should be lied to

You stated that it is not good to lie to children about Santa, the Easter bunny, etc. How many children are actually hurt and affected by it? The children eventually figure out on their own, and are not offended or question. It is all in fun, fun to make the child's childhood more enjoyable and memorable. Really, what is the harm? I do agree that children should not be lied to from adults by other lies such as "If they are going to the doctor, etc." But there are ways to not directly answer the child's question while still not lying. For, the child may be too young to actually understand and could become worried or change their mood or behavior. But if the child is old enough to, he or she should not be lied to. The real only acceptable time to lie to a child is about Santa Claus and other mythical characters. Again, I ask what is the harm? We are not teaching them to lie. Also, it improves a child's life morally. The child learns from Santa that it is good to give to others. These ideas originated hundreds of years ago, and are traditions which children continue when they grow up and have kids also. :)
Children should be lied to

I believe that lying to children, whether in the form of perpetuating silly myths like the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, or by withholding factual answers to their questions about subjects such as sex and death, is bad, primarily for the children themselves but also for society as a whole. Lying either directly or by omission is harmful because children eventually find out the truth, and an air of distrust is created. Children hear their parents say "It's wrong to lie" all of the time, but when they find out that Santa Claus doesn't exist, their natural reaction is one of confusion and eventual cynicism - "Why should I not lie like my parents told me to when they obviously lie?" Even more dangerous is withholding information on more substantial issues such as sex, death, and the harshness of the world in general. There is no reason not to answer whatever questions a child asks in a truthful manner. Parents and other adults who lie by omission may think they are protecting children, when in fact full disclosure would be a great deal more helpful to children in their journey through life. I look forward to a good debate.
College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens

My opponent has dropped ever single argument I have made and merely added a set of new contentions. So that is the first reason to vote CON. The thesis of this debate is exactly what my opponent said in his first speech, it can't be changed throughout the debate arbitrarily as he attemtps to do in his second "rebuttal" therefore we instantly drop these non-topical argument and focus on those presented (I will argue them however). Thesis: "I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available" Therefore the burden of the CON is to prove that College education does not provide better paying jobs. As I have done in my first speech, also I took it a step further to point out how rather than provide a head start on success in life college sets students back, therefore we can clearly vote CON. Also we must note that their are no warrants supporting his first speech so we can once again drop all these absurd claims. On to the PRO Main Point 1: Universities offer better returns if you invest. This is by far the most non topical argument of the round, so I see no reason why this should even be taken into consideration. Now it is non-topical because my opponent talks about Universities not Colleges. Universities are An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and Colleges are an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. A Blatant difference, had my opponent clarified at the beginning of the debate that we are discussing both, I would argue them both, but because he didn't and there is little time for me to respond if he decides to arbitrarily establish this bond we can not allow him. Main Point 2: The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. After we remember that we are trying to establish that college = better jobs so more money, we can realize this main point is incorrect. Because of the first main point where he says "studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't". This is only talking about selective colleges and community colleges are not selective, also for this matter what are these studies? He never manages to cite them so how are we to know they actually exist? We can't so dismiss the studies but keep in mind that he agrees. Also going back to my point about universities and colleges the entire set of warrants for how scholoraships are more available are only referenced from Universities, so we can dismiss this claim. Remember we are not discussing Universities only Colleges, and for that matter my opponent fails to uphold a clear debate he merely suggests contentions and then drops them. So
College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens

My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. "Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.
College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens

Hi. My name is Dillon and education has always been an important thing for me. With our downfalling economy, I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available, therefore stimulating the economy for us. With more and more people getting better jobs, a larger amount of money the will have to pay for Social Security, which would possibly help decrease the deficit the U.S. economy is in right now. Also, a college education would allow for more innovative technologies to be developed in the future, as well as a generally smarter public, which is always beneficial. I am sorry I do not have any sources cited, but it is 10:15 P:M where I live and I still have work to do. Also, not many sources are available, as this debate isn't exactly the largest thing to be arguing about.
Wumbology is valid science

I admit, I took a test to skip the first grade, but there were certainly no questions about "Wumbology" on it. Geography, maybe, but not Wumbology.My opponent asserts the Spongebob universe is a part of the real world that we live in, but provides no evidence for this. As an alternative, much more likely theory, I propose that Spongebob Squarepants is nothing more than a fictional cartoon. Whether or not I can prove this is irrelevant, because the burden of proof here is not on me. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove Spongebob and Patrick are real creatures but he has simply not done this.My opponent tries to claim Patrick is a god by wrongly attributing a few properties to him. He says because Patrick can fly without the aid of wings or overly inflated pants, he must be omnipotent, but this doesn't even logically follow! Just because one has the ability to do one thing (ie, fly) does not mean he/she has the ability to do all things.And need I remind him, and the audience, that in "Chocolate with Nuts" Patrick only said "I love you" to a complete stranger because he was trying to butter him up so he would buy some of the chocolate he was going door to door selling? This clearly proves that Patrick is a deceitful, sociopathic creature who uses people by lying about being in love with them just to make some cash. Can we really trust such a starfish's promise about the existence of "Wumbology", especially when it's unsupported by literally every dictionary on the planet?The defense rests.
Wumbology is valid science

It is evident that my opponent has either missed the first grade or is being purposely deceitful. This "Spongebob Universe" exists within ur own universe...which exists. We also have hours and hours of footage from this world in the archives of Nickelodeon. Now based upon numerous displays of unusual power by Patrick, we must look closelty to figure out what is going on. Patrick, in the episode "Patrick Smartpants", falls off of a cliff and loses his head. By the end of the same episode he is back to normal. In the episode "The Sponge Who Could Fly", Spongebob flies with his inflated pants. Patrick, on the other hand, can fly without need for any such help. In the episode "Chocolate With Nuts", Patrick says to a stranger, "I love you". We can assume because of these, and many more, supernatural abilities that Patrick: A) Has been resurrected B) Is omnipotent C) Is omnibenelovent Since all of the above are attributes of God we can safely make the assumption that Patrick is God. If Patrick is God then he would have spoken Wumbology into existence, therefore causing it to exist.
Wumbology is valid science

Reminds me of Monty Python's "is she a witch" argument:P1: Witches burn.P2: Wood burns.P3: Wood floats.P4: Ducks float.C: If one weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch.Anyway... let's take a look at my opponent's argument:P1: Scientists study whales.P2: Whales are big.P3: Big is the opposite of mini.P4: The opposite of mini is Wumbo.C: By the transitive property, scientists study Wumbo.What do these arguments have in common? They're both talking about fictional things, witches and Wumbology. The definitions of "Wumbology" and "Wumbo" exist only in the Spongebob Squarepants universe, not in any credible dictionary, so my opponent's fourth premise has no merit in the real world.It should read "The opposite of mini is Wumbo according to Patrick Starfish". And what does that prove? Nothing, unless we include a premise "Everything Patrick Starfish says on TV is actually true" and agree with it for some reason, which we wouldn't.My opponent needs actual evidence that Wumbology is more than just a fictional science. Otherwise, the resolution has not been proven.
Wumbology is valid science

I will begin by saying "I will begin by saying". I will begin by saying that this matter can be very easily solved logically. As my opponent has stated, Wumbo is "The opposite of mini". The: used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance. Opposite: Having a position on the other or further side of something. Of: used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation. Mini: Denoting a miniature version of something. Now according to an unbiased source, antonyms of mini include: big, giant and, large. http://thesaurus.com... Recent breakthroughs in Cetacean Zoology suggest that whales are big. Logical Proof: I. Scientists study whales II. Whales are big III. Big is the opposite of mini IV. The opposite of mini is Wumbo V. By the transitive property, scientists study Wumbo.