BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Females have a harder life than males

" So, a temporary state of hardship is enough for one to conclude that females live harder lives than males? " It makes situations even more stressful . . not only do women face the everyday challenges men do but also deal with other things like menstrual period and symptoms on top of it. " However, there is no doubt that females are very good at helping each others emotionally. You always see them share tears, hugs, etc., whenever someone from their company is let down by something. Is this the case with males? No. Males go through emotional pain, but due to societal factors, they feel that sharing emotions with their male friends is very painful, even embarrassing." Not all men feel this way, I have seen plenty of males helping each other out emotionally. . It is a choice to share or bottle up your emotions. And there are always councilors you can speak to privately if it is viewed as an issue.
Females have a harder life than males

Thank you. The resolution states that females have harder lives than males. In order for that to be proven, my opponent will have to make it evident that in general, females deal with more problemms than males, and that their nature is more severe than that of males. That being said, she will have to use the entire world to prove her case right, not only her own country. Arguments and rebuttals Pro stated that females have a harder life than males "as soon as they begin their first menstrual period." So, a temporary state of hardship is enough for one to conclude that females live harder lives than males? Now, my opponent mentions quite a lot of emotional consequences of menstruation, such as depression and anxiety. However, there is no doubt that females are very good at helping each others emotionally. You always see them share tears, hugs, etc., whenever someone from their company is let down by something. Is this the case with males? No. Males go through emotional pain, but due to societal factors, they feel that sharing emotions with their male friends is very painful, even embarrassing. Moreover, males get into a lot more physical fights than females do. This harms them not only physically, but also mentally. As I said, it is harder for males to deal with emotional problems because they are naturally less defensive against them than females are, and they have less willingness and acceptance from others to actually solve their mental problems the same way females do. Moving on, in many cultures, the male has to work and provide food and shelter for his family, including the wife (i.e., the female). This is a norm in poor countries, which makes it harder for males because they do not work in offices, but mining fields, and so forth. Now, I wish to ask my opponent to make her case before I move on. Thanks.
Females have a harder life than males

Females have a harder life than men starting as soon as they begin their first menstrual period. Not only is it annoying but it is also painful. Physical symptoms: Breast tenderness, bloating, headache, swelling of the extremities, fatigue, and cramps. Emotional symptoms: Depression, angry outbursts, irritability, anxiety, confusion, social withdraw, mood changes. http://www.knowmycycle.com... Females also have the role of child birth. You have all of the un-wanted symptoms of pregnancy then the painful birth 9 months later. For example frequent urination, severe mood swings, insomnia etc. etc. Then of course there are the smaller but equally annoying things like bodily maintenance expectations . .such as shaving our legs, arm pits etc. plucking our eye brows, taking extra time for make up and hair. etc. etc. All of which men never have to go through. . .
Why waste products are better then nuclear power.

Since my opponent has the burden of proof and after some intense research I have yet to find out what waste products actually are, I ask my opponent to post their first argument before I can possible present any points to refute. But since I'm bored, I will post my first point on the benefits of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants can be located anywhere in the world regardless of location. Whether this is in the desert or in the Sahara desert, the power plants could still operate. Many other alternative energies must have very specific conditions in order to function. Nuclear does not need any of these. Nuclear power can also prodcue alot of energy that can viably substitute current fossil fuel usage. Thank you. PS, I still don't know what waste products are...
Nuclear power presents the only viable option for reducing CO2 output

Rounds: One opening statement each, two rebuttals and then one open to floor/closing. Nuclear power is not only a safe and reliable source of power but also when considered the most cost effective source of electricity currently available. Even taking into consideration all nuclear incidents globally, this includes mining, fuel purification, plant operation, waste disposal, construction and material transport the number of life years lost as a result is considerably less than those lost solely in the mining of coal. The effects of radiation are widely misunderstood and the limits set by the international community are extremely cautious compared to studies on actual tolerable levels of radiation. This combined with the media outlook on the results of nuclear accidents has given a highly distorted view of the danger posed by nuclear power generation. Nuclear power plants as a result of the way they operate are an inherently stable and reliable source of energy particularly when plants operate more than one reactor and have the capacity to shift load from one reactor to another during routine maintenance. The long and predictable lifespan of reactor designs also gives a constant source of unvarying power output for extended periods of time. The typical lifespan of a nuclear reactor is 70 years this is almost double that of a coal fired power plant. When compared to other forms of electrical generation the overall lifetime cost per per kW is one of the lowest if not the lowest, this however does not take into account the potential global economic costs of global warming beyond 450ppm CO2. If the potential cost of the effects of global climate change are factored into the costing then nuclear is easily the best option. Not only this but if you consider the heavy impact of concrete production on the release of greenhouse gasses then it is in fact, in terms of construction, greener to build a nuclear power plant than to build the equivalent number of wind turbines. This is down to the fact that each and every wind turbine requires a considerable concrete foundation and when this is multiplied for an entire installation of wind turbines the volume of concrete involved is greater than that required to build a complete functioning nuclear power plant. Another downside to both wind and solar is that they both have high maintenance cost compared to nuclear power. In wind turbines this is down to their adverse working conditions and the inevitable wear on expensive moving parts. In solar the relatively short working lifetime of solar cells combined with the expensive material used in photovoltaic coating means that the costs are similarly high. I am sure there are more points to be made but I am leaving some, hopefully, to be highlighted by my opponent and/or some for later remarks.
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

Thats not an old saying, I wasn't off topic, And you didn't respond to my arguments. Three strikes. . . Lets say we DID try to repay the descendants of slaves. . . How would we be able to track them down? That was over a hundred years ago! Hundreds of new black people have came to the United States since then. What is your whole plan for this? Here are your examples: Britan: Invading India (there were probably a lot more things I could've put here), China: Mao, Russia: the cold war, Germany:WWII, Japan: letting their own citizens be killed in war. There are plenty more if you want some. The people we would be paying for slavery have not lost anything due to racism in their lives. They didn't live through slavery, Why should they benefit from it? America has changed greatly from slavery to segregation to nothing. There is no government-enforced racism in the U. S. The issue is you leftists can't see that, So you make a big deal about the past, Preventing you from seeing the future.
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

Thanks for accepting, But I'll start out by addressing your off-topic argument. Yes, Every nation has its ups & downs, But you lost me when you said that America has changed its ways so much. I want to ask you "when & how has America changed its ways? " The exact same things that happed before our time and is still happening today. Can you give me one example other than integration, Which was a terrible idea. You said that other nations has done extremely worse things. Can you give me any examples? Probably not. Let's be clear about the situation. All of this reverse prejudice nonsense doesn't work with me. Trying to blame Obama for the word "racist" makes absolutely no sense especially when white people have & are still practicing racism to this very day. You are completely off topic so why is it that a specific group of people have a problem with Black people receiving what's due to them? I already know the answer but I'd like to here other perspectives because the argument is going to be purely illogical. As the old saying goes, "if you don't have a problem receiving the benefits of slavery then you shouldn't have a problem receiving the debt of slavery. "
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

I'll pickup the gauntlet of which you slapped America's history with. (let me know if you get the reference) To start off, I'm going to say that no nation is perfect. Every nation has its ups and downs. Why is it that America is having their one downfall overused in today's era when we have already changed our ways so much? Especially when other nations have done extremely worse things than america, And not be nearly as ridiculed as America? The whole "reverse prejudice" thing is not a fair judgement. Two wrongs don't make a right and "reverse prejudice" is just racism, But against whites now. The sad thing is, People were becoming more secure around people in the 90's, Yet now we are less secure. Obama was the first to weaponize the word "racist" and ever sine then America has been bashed constantly for their one mistake over a hundred years ago. I hope to enlighten your clouded mind on this topic.
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

This is the second debate to "American Needs To Pay Its Debt For Reparations. " This discussion is more so for the people who've benefited from slavery. Since these people have gotten rich from free labor, Why does their descendants feel as if the descendants of slavery shouldn't receive compensation? When you look at the actions of these people, It's very clear how hypocritical they truly are. Reparations isnt just for slavery alone. The entire American government has put systems in place to keep the majority of Black people as an underclass. That statement is a fact and it can't be refuted. America has absolutely no problem paying reparations to people of other countries but seem to refuse to right the wrongs of its infamous past. It's time to breakdown the myths by exposing the truth. If you're not a Black American then you've definitely benefited from unearned income.
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

No, No it isn't. No, No they won't. You still haven't responded to my argument that two wrongs don't make a right. Because you can't. Let's say we do have money earned by slaves. . . What happens if we do what you are proposing? The economy will nearly collapse. Taking money from one group of people is not right no matter what happens in the past. It's true, Two wrongs don't make a right. . .
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

As I stated earlier, It's time for America to pay its debt and there's no getting around it. Whether it comes in our lifetime or the next, Reparations will be paid. You haven't brought any type of argument to the table what-so-ever. Denial and stating that you've earned every penny is comical. The main facts is that you can't argue with are the Headright System and Homestead Act because that's documented.
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

Really? Wow. So your idea would be to walk up to random black people, Ask for their immigration papers and give them money? This is getting more comical as it goes. . . What does this have to do with giving people free money? You are confusing me. And also getting off topic. Tell me hoe long ago those were and what government freebies have to do with racism? You just spittin' out words my friend. I have gained absolutely nothing from the government. I earned every penny I have now. Not because of the government, But because of hard work. I'm sure everyone in the comments will agree that the government A: rarely gives out money and B: has no money right now that has been earned by slaves. Its genuinely getting harder to take you seriously. In what way does giving out money to random black people help racism? In the end this debate boils down to one bulletproof argument: two wrongs don't make a right.
America's Debt For Reparations Is Due: Part 2

I answered your questions with facts but I don't know what you mean by three strikes. Tracking them down is easy because you work, Associate and live in the same cities as them. Black immigrants do not qualify. The Civil Rights BS played a role in their arrival and the Civil Rights era happened at a particular time, Which would be the cut-off mark. I'm 100% sure that immigrants have documentation so it wouldn't be a problem. Your examples of worse things is no more extreme than what the US has done. Example: America's history include murdering the natives, Stealing the natives' land, Enslaving people till death, Physically beat the people for not wanting to work for free, Participated in experimentation of Black people (Tuskegee Experiment), Allow racist cops to kill innocent people despite video evidence, Redlined the communities by denying funding/loans, Etc. I can go on and on for days. "You say that black people haven't lost anything due to racism, They didn't live through slavery & why should they benefit. " Whites today didn't live through slavery either but they're sure feasting off the benefits aren't they? No disrespect but you people have made a living via unearned income & it's documented. Explain to me what the Jim Crows laws were about? Now explain to me what the Black Code were? Blacks don't live off freebies that are passed down through each generation because we never received the freebies like you. If you think that I'm lying then research the Headright System, The Homestead Act & the G. I. Bill. . . Yes, All those millions of acres of land that whites have used for building wealth were 100% freebies of the US government. There's no difference between a leftist & a rightist because you have the same goals but you ended by saying that "there's no government-enforced racism. " Hmmm " Step your game up because you're getting cooked. "
The "Flick" attack should be continued as a valid touch

Ever read a 40$ reply? You are now. In the course of this discussion, we have touched on both salient, and diversionary points from the immediate situation at hand. Safety: common sense indicates you guard what is reasonable, and you shoot for what is both reasonable, and reasonably protected. Pro has done me a favor, and refuses to acknowledge it. Lower torso/armpit. This variety of strike would not be present should fencers not shoot for it. The inception of the back of the torso was from passe attacks, that being the person being run past had a resort in which to execute an attack before a judge ruled the situation to a halt. This ties into "spirit" of the game. Right of Way: in all sports, we assume intention to a goal. Fencing is no different, but in all sports, accidents may score. Fencing is no different. That doesn't mean your opponent, in such a circumstance as the sport of fencing, should be denied a direct attack "locked out" or otherwise, from what the Flick can accomplish by means of its use. This lends itself to being Out of Time. Spirit of the Game: Blunt weapons, and springy weapons have enabled us to move past the nasty death and bleeding out. Its what turned from "Blood Sport" to "Sport". The question about fencing is whether or not current fencing can match its origins. If the Flick inhibits that, we have our answer. If the Flick encourages this argument, Con concedes. Anecdotal: A weapon's natural springyness is inherent in an attack. There is no reason to assume such is exhausted. More over, there is no reason to have exhausted it through any means of regular attack, that being an attack that does not immediately negate itself after being thrown. Anecdote, fortunately, gives me lee-way. Being run at affords me the ability to do something about the attack. I am deeply sorry that Pro has been run at by novices, and not able to do something about it. I am deeply sorry that the immediate point in line of their attack was delivered so quickly that it was confounding, as opposed to being delivered via where they specifically were not attacking to. Now, I apologize that I was not able to deliver something more forth coming for my last, but extend that was dropped (if the reader's deem such to have occurred), but... forty dollar reply. Good luck to my opponent, and Happy Father's Day to our reading audience.
The Death Penalty for Murderers

"Everyone has the right to live, until they take that right from someone else, then their own right to life is forfeit. Unless you take the responsibility of the executioner. The executioner keeps his/her right to life because they preserve life by stopping those who seek to destroy it." Morally, I believe that playing with another person's life is like playing with fire, because in the end you just get burned. Killing someone can never be excused, even if it's a murderer's life. All life has some type of value no matter how small it is. The decision of whether someone should die is in that person's own hands, not the hands anyone else. If we kill them, we're just stooping to their level. We must set an example to the people saying, taking another person's right to live is not right. "You may suggest life in prison. I disagree to this because life in prison is better than death. In prison, there will always be a glimmer of hope but there is no hope in death. And death is what a person deserving the death penalty has caused." It's unlikely that a deranged murderer would have any chance of probation or escape in a maximum security prison. Anyways, isn't death a little better than spending a life sentence in a place where you might be beaten, raped, and murdered. Dieing from lethal injection is like getting away with the crime they committed. It's like a kid brakes the window, gets spanked, and the whole situation is over. Pain lasts for a short time, but a long term punishment, like removing privileges, would leave more of an effect. People who have committed gruesome crimes should be punished not killed. Killing the criminal would only allow the the criminal to skip the harsh punishment they might deserve.
The Death Penalty for Murderers

I challenge anyone to debate me on this. If you accept, I thank you in advance. (: I believe in the Death Penalty because I believe in Life. Opening Statements Allowing murders to live is wrong in my opinion. Everyone has the right to live, until they take that right from someone else, then their own right to life is forfeit. Unless you take the responsibility of the executioner. The executioner keeps his/her right to life because they preserve life by stopping those who seek to destroy it. This is the same reason why war is necessary. Those who have the power to stop murderers and sit by while murderers run rampant are just as guilty as those doing the murdering. You may suggest life in prison. I disagree to this because life in prison is better than death. In prison, there will always be a glimmer of hope but there is no hope in death. And death is what a person deserving the death penalty has caused. Thank you for reading.
The Death Penalty for Murderers

Final Statements Think about the definition of justice. The most common form of execution, these days, is by lethal injection. The drug they use for the injection causes the prisoner to fall asleep, stop breathing, and then stops the heart. This causes very little pain and ends the prisoners life almost immediately. For the sake of this debate, let's say that there is no heaven or hell, this would mean the murderer was able to painlessly end his life and face no actual punishment for his crimes. Many people who have been murdered have gone through excruciating pain before they could die, such as being stabbed in the stomach, beaten to death, or shot. Think about the physical pain of the victims and the emotional pain from their grieving families and friends the murderer has caused. Do you believe that this could all be forgiven with the painless death of the murderer? In prison the only law is "Survival of the fittest". Sure you may some benefits, but they mean nothing if the muderer never gets out. Any friendship, alliance, or gang means absolutely nothing, you still have the high chance of death, especially if your gang decides your no use to them. Here's a list of the pros and cons of the Death penalty: Pros Possibly ending the life a killer. Possible closure for victims families. Cons Possibly ending the life of an innocent person. Costs millions of dollars more,per year, to execute the person than to give them a life sentance.(look it up) No pain and suffering whats so ever given to the murderer. Thank you to voters of this debate, and thank you to Callen13 for this interesting debate. May the best debator win!!! :D