BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should woman work or stay at home

Well, look, your argument is a bit unclear. If you are trying to suggest that women should stay at home, they are allowed to. There is nothing preventing them from making that choice. It's totally up to them to decide. If you are trying to force them to stay at home, well, isn't that a little bit excessive? To me, it sounds like a direct breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is binding both in the UK and Sweden. Obviously, every child is owed a set of obligations by each of its parent. That set of obligations is encapsulated by the concept of parental rights and responsibilities. What on Earth makes you think that an average mother cannot possibly combine breadwinning with discharging her parental obligations? In any case, even if she finds the two tasks encroach on one another, she has a choice to stop working at any time in order to attend to her child. But that decision has to be left up to her, not to you, or to me, or to anybody else.
Should woman work or stay at home

n the age of apparent equality women are increasingly encouraged to "have it all", balancing career, children and marriage to be seen as successful. However many feel this is bad for children who are then cared for by a childminder, nursery or member of the extended family (often grandparents). In many countries mothers (and indeed fathers) have a legal right to maternity (or paternity leave). For UK women this comprises 26 weeks paid leave and 26 weeks unpaid leave, in Sweden leave is offered to either parent until the child is 18 months old. Other options exist, protecting the right to ask for part-time work or flexible hours. However for many families, especially where the mother is the major breadwinner, it is financially impossible for her to stop work without considerable state support. However many studies also point to the years before a child starts school as the most important in its educational and emotional development. Many believe that for this reason the mother should be at home at least until her children start school in order to afford them the best start in life.
who is more popular Lil Wane or Eminem

This debate I most graciously accept and look forward too. I hope PRO offers good conduct as I will work to do no matter the outcome, let us begin. The debate itself asks us to determine the popularity of a musician, I will not call either an artist as a fart is more artistic. Eminem has sold the greatest amount of albums for a rapper in the 2000-2010 decade, making him more popular at that time then Lil' Wayne. As Lil' Wayne has retired, it will no doubt be again, that Eminem is more popular.
People not born in America can not run for President

2nd Round Intro/Arguement. I would like to thank my opponent for posting her next argument. Reading your response, I realized that you have not refuted my points in anyway . You simply go on to state your opinion of “fair.” We are engaged in a debate, and therefore we can’t just talk about what we think is right. For this round, I will extend my arguments. I ask you that you properly attempt to refute them peferably with sources. Thank you.
People not born in America can not run for President

Although I most definitly understand your argument but that does not meani will agree to it. I have to admit you have some very good points. About the part about Indians being in seperate tribes, that is absolutly NOT what i was trying to say at all. I know that the Europeans did so much for us as you so clearly pointed out, so shouldn't they have some right to run for office? You are abslolutly right about the Europeans taking land from the Indians. I guess what I am trying to say is, is that the 14th amendment shouldn't be able to tell us who can and can not be president. As i pointed out earlier "Not all of our President's were American" that is definitly true. George Washington, our nations first president, was born in England. As my opponent clearly states "it looks like many things such as racism, hate, ignorance, you name it". It looks like it because thats is exactly what it is! I am going to tell the truth; I am an american born citizen with a Tennessee twang that has German blood. I feel so strongly about this topic because none of my family can give blood or run for President. Does that seem fair to you? What you said about us fighting for our country? I may be wrong but don't people from other countries fight for us too? Aren't they allowed to have a seat in Congress or the Government? Even though they may not have been born in this country they pay taxes to keep our Country running somewhat smoothly and they have devoted their lives to be part of our Country. Would it really be so wrong to let them run for office?
People not born in America can not run for President

My argument stands clear as day that people born in other countries should have the ability to run for Presidency. These people fight for our country and some of them even make up our government! back in the 1700's, 1800's, and early 1900's; we treated African Americans awfully because of their skin color, and now that, that rule is abolished we decide that they can't run for president?!? The French! They taught us new ways to cook!The Germans brought crops! And my argument also is that none of us are actual Americans. Unless you are full native American then, no , you are not American. Because our ancestors came from Europe! George Washington was absolutely NOT American! So, now you're trying to tell me that because of the 14th amendment is going to change that? Now that I've made my point about how not EVERY president is American, I need someone to argue my topic!
We should use prisoners as a source of energy

Alright, You are basically saying that prisoners should work when in jail. However, That's literally against the law to do so. The FLSA(Fair Labor Standards Act) makes it so everyone needs to get paid at least federal minimum wage if they are to do work of any kind. The federal minimum wage in American is currently $7. 25 per hour. You tell us that there's 1. 5 million prisoners. So if we did: 1. 5 million inmates multiplied by $7. 25 per hour, It would cost the government ten million eight hundred seventy-five thousand dollars per hour if everyone got paid for working. Which means a day would cost two hundred sixty-one million, And one year of this would cost a whooping ninety-five billion two hundred sixty-five million! Are we really going to spend that much per year to fund some prisoners doing some work that wouldn't even give us so much power? I don't think so.
We should use prisoners as a source of energy

Here is my proposal: We have them construct many giant turbines; then we have them push the aforementioned turbine. Now, I realize this would be a difficult task to accomplish. But, There's many benefits to it as I will outline below. Socioeconomic This is very straight-forward: the mass-incarceration of African-Americans has resulted in gradual decline of their communities. We have seen massive degradation of the African-American work ethic; therefore, They must receive proper understanding of how the Jews would like us to operate. Global warming With such an incredible amount of prisoners, We could provide an enormous amount of power to people. There are around 1. 5 million prisoners in the United States -- think of all that raw untapped energy. Population-Control There are a lot of bad people, Disproportionately they're black. This plan eliminates the problem causers and people who are easily influenced -- it's a win-win.
Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

Thank you dkyana for agreeing to debate me! I would like to keep the same structure, so I will repost my previous rules. This article is what sparked my interest in this topic: http://www.ryersonian.ca... RULES: 1) This is a sensitive issue. As such I have allowed a 3 day response and cooldown period. Hate, racial slurs, and general disrespect will not be tolerated. 2) Do not post video, article, or anything as an argument other than your own response. 3) SOURCE please. Not for every statement, but no bogus statistics. Round Breakdown: Round 1) Acceptance. NO arguments. Round 2) Con then Pro opening statements. Pro may offer a rebuttal. Round 3) Rebuttals from Con and Pro, as well as a Construction (or re-addressing) of your side. Round 4) Closing statements
Sherlock best serie

There are many different shows that are much better than Sherlock, and it is easy to explain how. The show Breaking Bad has the highest rating than any other show on the iMBD list with a 9.5. The show Sherlock has a 9.3. Another show, Game of Thrones, also has 9.5 on iMBD. Thus, no one can say a show is better then any other, when other shows have higher ratings, at least one can't with using subjective materials. I look forward to the next round. Sources: http://www.imdb.com...
Debates that don't use proper grammar/make no sense should be auto-corrected/removed

Are you serious? I just said that people should use the spellcheck more often. I'm nothing like Darth Vader. See, this proves my point that too many children are on the site. I never stated once that people couldn't be from other countries. If you look in the Opinions, there are quite a lot of Non-English people, so, I really don't understand how you claim that I'm a "Darth Vader Dictator."
Debates that don't use proper grammar/make no sense should be auto-corrected/removed

I will make my argument, Some people are not from the USA and don't know all the context of (English) or even the spelling. I feel that because you think people suppose to know all of your language, they need to be removed from the website is this is a form of dictatorship and in my eyes your as the same a DARTH VADER........IF YOU DON'T TALK LIKE ME YOU ARE TO DIE WAAAAHHHAAAAAAAA
Debates that don't use proper grammar/make no sense should be auto-corrected/removed

From the small time I've been on this site, I've seen countless examples of simply childish debates. From "is _____ good at fortnite?" to "donald trump shud go di," some of these debates are simply moronic. This site should be used for intelligent and logical debates, not for some 7 year old to call his friend bad at Call of Duty. Another reason is that if their spelling and grammar is that bad, we can assume that they are quite young, and, given that some of the topics on this site are not child-friendly, they should not be able to see those topics. I have seen a post on "Should men have wrights to sell their sperm to others is that a wright?" The fact that (presumably) a child knows what that is shows that they have too much access to other topics that are not child-appropriate. While the flagging system is good, it takes too long to get down. I suggest adding a filter so that people can search for what they want to, and add "18+" filters to their posts if necessary. I'm very interested to see others views on this.
Tomatoe is a fruit

"Ok a fruit is an edible part of a plant that contains seeds and is grown above ground. A tomato is above ground, it has seeds and is edible." Ok, this fact does not refute the solution I have presented. Not getting my point? Here's some help: I have defined tomato as a fruit AND a vegetable. I have taken biological/botanical definition to prove its fruit classification I have also taken the cultural/word definition to prove it a vegetable. The point is: the tomato is both a fruit AND vegetable! Not only has the pro side lifted not a finger of effort to respond, she didn't even read my round!
Tomatoe is a fruit

There are four choices for the question pertaining to the fruit or vegetable classification of a tomato. 1. Fruit 2. Vegetable 3. Neither 4. Both My opponent chose the first choice. The tomato, while botanically a fruit, is actually largely classified a vegetable in the culinary field. It is a fruit because it fulfills the definition of a fruit: The ripened ovary of a seed plant and its contents. [1] The tomato is a seed plant. Its fruit, also called a tomato, contains the female ovular gametophyte. It fulfills the fruit definition. This definition is biological. The original definition of a vegetable was very simply: A nonanimal for of life; a plant [2] or Any plant [3] The adjective form is still used relative to this archaic definition. Vegetable did not gain its scientific definition until more recent centuries. The culinary/cultural field still ascribes the vegetable category to the tomato because the tomato is cooked AS a vegetable. Cultural definitions widely proclaim the tomato a vegetable. Biological definitions say fruit. So, fruit or vegetable? You cannot say one or the other without being half wrong. To be completely correct, you would have to say that the tomato is both a fruit AND a vegetable. [1] www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fruit [1] [2] http://quod.lib.umich.edu... [2] [3] http://www.etymonline.com... [3]
Lighting Impromptu Debate

1. Cosmological Argument Physics reveals that space and time do not exist independently of one another. Nothing (God included) can exist before the universe (before time) just as nothing can exist north of the north pole. By Occam's razor it is more likely that universe was uncaused than that it was caused by an uncaused cause. 2. Complexity Argument If energy is added to a system continuously over time it can gradually become more orderly without violating thermodynamics. No God required. 3. Creation Perfection is an abstract term referring to a state of flawlessness. The statement "1+1=2" is perfect, as are other mathematical and physical truths. We know them not from God but from the characteristics of the universe itself. (can I make new rebuttals?) 4. Paradoxes An omnipotent being cannot exist because it could not create a task that it could not perform. A being cannot be omniscient and omnipotent because it would be unable to act against its predictions of the future.
Lighting Impromptu Debate

In argument 1 my opponent states that people form a states which implies they are not naturally found and further implies centralization. However in argument 5 my opponent says that free trade is natural and right this directly contradicts his first contention Furthermore my opponent says that decentralized organizations are most efficient not only is this untrue, as Genghis Kahn had a highly centralized army and created the largest land empire ever, but this also contradicts my opponents 1st point so quick recap Argument 1 contradicts arguments 5 and 4 and argument four was disproved. This leaves arguments 2 and 3 2 Incentive, my opponent basically says that there is no motivation under socialism and capitalism provides incentive. However this is untrue as in our capitalist society many people are on a salary but socialism can also reward good effort as well, in the USSR good workers were rewarded with cruises Dang Character Limit :-)
Lighting Impromptu Debate

I will be arguing that Capitalism is the superior system. 1. Right to Property The State is nothing more than an organization of people. It does not have the right to interfere with the right to property through involuntary taxation and redistribution of wealth. 2. Productivity When people work for themselves, they have a greater incentive to succeed. Working for the State removes one's stake in his own work. 3. Efficiency It is in the interest of private producers to become as efficient as possible. A subsidized producer does not have the pressure to maximize profits and reduce expenses. 4. Organization A socialist system needs to be centralized and would become dependent on a bureaucracy. This means of organization is very inefficient compared to a diffused capitalist organization of industry. 5. Naturalism Humans naturally exist in an environment of free trade. We make exchanges and agreements according to what we consider fair. Socialism violates natural autonom
Lighting Impromptu Debate

I will be arguing the God does indeed exist. My arguments are thus 1. Cosmological Argument P1:Everything that has a beginning has an end and vice versa P2: Everything that has a beginning must also have a first cause which caused the beginning C1:The Universe has an end and therefore a beginning C2:The Universe must have a first cause This first cause is God. Now God does not need a first cause since he has no beginning and no end and has existed eternally 2. Complexity Argument The universe and everything therein is incredibly complex, especially life. All this complexity could not come about as the result of chance. Therefore the universe must have had a designer. This designer is God. 3. Creation P1:I cannot know of something which I have never in any way experienced. P2:Perfection does not exist on this earth P3:I have the idea of perfection C1:I got this idea of perfection from somewhere This somewhere was God
Lighting Impromptu Debate

This sounds fun and I have nothing to do for a while so I'll give it a go. Out of my opponent's topics, I am would like to argue topic number 3. I do not know which side I am arguing, but I can do either. My three topics for debate are: 1. Free will and determinism are compatible with one another. 2. Physicalism is true. 3. Goes does not exist. I would prefer to argue Pro (in favor of) on all of these cases but I do not know how the sides are determined. I have nothing more to say for this round.
Lighting Impromptu Debate

This is a lighting impromptu debate we each have 30 minutes and 1000 characters to post our arguments. In round one we each post three topics for our opponent to choose from and define major terms. In round two we make are arguments, and in round 3 it is rebuttal time. This is supposed to be quick and fast the three topics my opponent may choose from are 1)Failed Nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations 2)Economic sanctions ought not to be used as a means of achieving foreign policy objectives.
Conservatism has conserved nothing and should be replaced with fascism

The purpose of this argument isn't to try to justify whether a fascist system is just or not. It is simply supporting a belief that fascism would have been much more successful than modern Conservatism nowadays, which has allowed the nation to experience radical leftist transformations after the 60s. National Socialist Germany knew the dangers of democracy, an ideology that was favored by the Conservatives of Germany at the time. What resulted? A society of degeneracy. Berlin was considered to be the sin capital of the world. Homosexuality was rampant. Transgenderism was normalized. People gave up on Christian values. Cities were taken upon by radical Bolshevik propagandists. Conservatism was unable to do anything to stop this trend since it supported a Constitutional republic. A dictatorship, however, was able to conserve Germany's Christian ideals and rid the nation of leftist degeneracy. The same actions are occurring in the United States. It is now completely normal to identify as a Communist "antifascist. " There is no molar line. The nation has been plundered into a mess. The older generation would have been disgusted by this so-called neo-Marxist "progress." What is Conservatism going to do? A transformation like this is legally supported by the Constitution. It would take fascist laws to literally make America Great Again, and return to the old era, the period which Conservatives admire. Again, I would have naturally preferred debating a Conservative who has been already redpilled on our society, since you will falsely claim that I am spreading conspiracy theories, unless you wanna do a debate on the points discussed in my argument.
Conservatism has conserved nothing and should be replaced with fascism

While I personally may not be a conservative by definition i'm technically what would be called a center left, I do feel obligated to argue against this. I used to be a conservative so I believe that I am in a position to argue against you. First let's get something out of the way, becoming an authoritarian state would get rid of many of the liberties that this country was founded on, such as free speech. One person with all the power would cause nothing but trouble for the us and any other country. Let's look at some modern day examples of an authoritarian state, let's just go with the most obvious, North Korea. look at it's populace. starving, scared and always acting. if 1 person were to take power, that would take power away from the people. So If that wasn't enough to convince you let's go back to the past where there were 2 major authoritarian states. Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. both of them resulted in endless corruption and who suffered the consequences? that's right the people. Let's stray away from the consequences of it for the people. Let's just say that we have a good authoritarian one who doesn't censor and gives money to the people no matter how unlikely that may be. That would cause a coup. This is because no ruler rules alone. The day that this happens is the death of the United States of America.
Conservatism has conserved nothing and should be replaced with fascism

I will argue that modern Conservatism has literally conserved nothing. If Conservatives would like to return to the pre-1950s era, then they should support the implementation of fascist policies. This method is the only way to end leftist subversion of this nation. Before we start, let's actually define fascism as an authoritarian right-wing system. I know many Conservatives view it as inherently evil, but remember that a constitutional democracy would legally allow the Left to express its views, carry out its tactics, and brainwash the individuals. I would like to challenge a Conservative who has already been redpilled on some issues.
This is a hot one: Feminists should respect men.

I know that must be hard to deal with and I respect your descision to respect men. However, you misunderstand what a feminist is fighting for. You understnad the wage gap correct? Do you also realise men making policies on women over abortions. These Femminists are fighting for the right to choose how they live like men do. I understand that there are some bad examples of a feminist activities but we cannot veiw them all to be the same. Now the reason that some of these Feminists disrespect men is because sometimes people don't think as rationally as possible and could be upset over years of oppression. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Hillary Clinton's honesty relative to other politicians.

Let me first point out that this debate has gotten pretty absurd; my opponent is trying to discredit two very credible sources who workd in the Intelligence Department by claiming that they maybe made it up for political purposes, then tries to discredit it by calling CHINAGATE a conspiracy theory. My opponent not only provides no evidence that these men made chinagate up for political purposes, but also continues to try and discredit it by saying it was publicised by infowars, which he claims is not a credible source. Again, he provides no proof that infowars is not a credible source, though I wouldn't cite it to avoid stigma, but let's assume it is; it doesn't matter, chinagate still happened, it was all over the news in 1996, but if that isn't enough, I can cite 3 very credble news sites that confirm what I am saying right now:http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.cnsnews.com...http://www.independentsentinel.com...Now let's move on to the Clinton foundation; the Clinton Foundation is not a charity, it is a slush fund used by Clinton to funnel money to her wallet under the guise of a charity organization. As a matter of fact, only 6% of the Clinton Foundations funds go to charity:http://www.foxnews.com...http://www.breitbart.com...http://www.wnd.com...