BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The images offered by debate.org are sexist.

First, I never said that debate.org was sexist, just that the image selection is. Second, I'm not saying that it's the creators purposely being sexist, and I'm sure that it's not. And your point about it being the fault of society is exactly the point I'm trying to make- despite everything, society still makes us psychologically consider women second class citizens, and assume that most professionals are men, even if the reality doesn't back that up. It's like the riddle where a man and his son were in a plane crash and the man died instantly but the son survived. When the boy was brought to the hospital, the surgeon looked at him and said, "I can't operate on this boy, he's my son!" How is this possible? The answer, of course, is that the surgeon is the boy's mother. But the automatic assumption is that the surgeon is male. This is even shown in language, in which "proper grammar" still insists we use the male pronouns when talking about a person of unknown gender. So yes, it is society that is sexist. And that is clearly reflected in debate.org's image gallery.
The images offered by debate.org are sexist.

Your first stipulation is that debate.org is sexist because there is a disproportionate ratio favoring male images. Was the intention of debate.org, in putting forth these images, to rally against women? We can only imagine some band of men out there sitting behind a computer and cackling maniacally as they "stick it to the woman." But OK. Discounting other possibilities such as a lack of time, or care, etc., and simply assuming that these men had it out for you, a more constructive target would be society. It's typical to assume that debate.org is some maleficent website, some rogue community, in an otherwise egalitarian society, but the fact still remains that we are relentlessly affected by our environments, and it is these environments that, at least psychologically speaking, are conducive to unconscious expressions of sexist attitudes. As much as you're speaking out against sexism, how natural is it for a man to wear a skirt? It's fine for a woman to wear pants, but a man with a skirt would merit some raised eyebrows. We don't WANT to label skirts as solely female, but because we are being influenced by society all the time, and because society does not agree with men wearing skirts, we bristle at the thought. Are the images themselves sexist? If we look at any form of media, is it obligatory that we include an equal number of men and women? Should there be an equal number of male and female firefighters in a 9/11 documentary? You're mistaken if you think we can reach this perfect form of objectivity. Debate.org is a human creation, and as a human creation, it is inherently subjective.
The images offered by debate.org are sexist.

They are all male, except for "Barber", "Female", "Female Profile", "Girl", "Hospital Nurse", "Immunologist", "Queen", "Receptionist", "Teacher", "Waitress", and "Woman", and a couple that have both males and females. Out of 94 images (not counting the ones that were not human or had more than one person), only 11 are women. And for the most part, the ones that are female either have to be female by definition, such as "Woman", "Female", or "Girl", or are stereotypically female jobs, such as "waitress" and "nurse"- I am saying these are stereotypically women, not that there aren't men in these professions. ANyway, my point is, it's sexist.
Should We Use Cloning

Cloning can mean a lot of things not for only humans but the world where Endangered species are free to go with no risk of them to be completely Extinct. Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and then we could forever preserve endangered species. Another way cloning can help Humans is that plants could be cloned for medical reasons. We should discover how to clone animals,plants and humans to produce life-saving medications and to in a way protect the are good things and bad things about cloning. The Benefits and risks are as follow.Benefits:Cloning can bring a lot of opportunities to the worlds overall health,It can help plants become more disease-resistant reproducing "superior" or "better" plants,Clone animal to help Endangered species,Cloning will help the world's Hunger Issue,Cloned plants also are more predictable which could help save millions of dollars in farming costs.Risk:The cloning Failure rate is 0.1 to 3 percent or for example every 1000 tries there are only about 30 Successful clones that ill be made,Clones tend to be much larger and is called Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS) and have larger organs That can lead to breathing, blood flow and other problems but this doesn't happen to all clones.(Note:These are not all the Good/Bad things about cloning.Most of the ethical issues of cloning be it in animals or humans have been raised by the Catholic Church as well as other religious organizations. They all strongly oppose cloning as according to the religious belief life begins at conception and that life cannot be created or made artificially but from the unity of a man and female(In other words "Sexual Reproduction").In My own opinion some religions do think cloning is bad and others good just like abortion but that is still an option why can't cloning be one?
Should We Use Cloning

Does cloning strip someone of their individuality? Cloning is the process of making genetically identical organisms through nonsexual means. What this means is that you could make a exact copy of any organism through non natural means. This topic has been debated for a while do to the ethics of cloning because people think of it as playing god. And they're right because when you create a clone your stripping someone's individuality. Which no one should have to do.
Should We Use Cloning

What is a clone? Clones are organisms that are exact genetic copies.Every single bit of their DNA is Identical. On July 5, 1996 the very first Mammal was cloned.Dolly The Sheep.This is important because Imagine a world where this could lead to even bigger discoveries like Cures to what once seemed like Uncurable.Handicap people who don"t have the ability to do what a "Normal" Person should do.For the people who help protect us in war.The Children who are born with deadly diseases when it was not even their choice.They deserve a chance to grow up like everyone else.If the Bio-Technology was to be used for Cloning I think we can make a world where everyone has the same opportunities as everyone else.
Should We Use Cloning

and my answer is yes it does. Cloning would strip someone of their individuality in other words the clone and the host wouldn't be unique or special, they would be walking around knowing that there is a copy of them. And no one should have to suffer that much psychological torture. And I admit you do make some good points for example how cloning should be an option but people will have the chance to misuse the technology. Cloning should not be used do to the dangers it could cause, for example rival countries could make their army stronger. In conclusion I think cloning should not be tampered with due to the dangers no matter the reason.
Should We Use Cloning

On Round one you said that cloning would strip someone of their individuality but in round 3 you answered my question that cloning would be an option so why would people who think cloning will strip them of their individuality why would they do it.They won't.The same goes for the first part of your round 2 and your argument about why cloning is a religious controversy.Another thing in round 2 is that if a disease was cloned or copied FROM the host like you mentioned""And I know clones could be used as organ donors but what if the clone inherits a disease from the original host"...this would mean the host already has the disease and if he really need the organ then yes the disease will be transferred But the host already has it so that still won't change the fact that the host has the disease but he will have the organ that he needed.I strongly feel that for round 3 you just backed up your round 2 statement and did not provide NEW information why cloning is bad.You also failed to finish one of your sentences in round 3.At the end of round 3 you said that some right would cross and segregation would come back but you also failed to provide information on how that would happen.
Should We Use Cloning

Cloning is completely unethical. Religion clearly states that mere mortals like us can't play god and even by putting religious beliefs aside it's still completely unethical , yes I know that we can use clones as organ donors but what if the clone doesn't want to donate its organs then what would happen with the clone would it just be abandoned somewhere or would it have to give up the needed organ against its. And even if we were to let the clone go how would it live his life with no individuality. You see theses are the type of things that can be dealt with normally and even if we were able to clone a human eventually animal and human rights would collide,which will result in the misuse and the segregation of clones. Answers to questions: 1.Considering what the us. government has done so far I'm pretty sure cloning is already possible but will be possible to the public in the future in other words yes it will. 2.It will cause over population on earth 3.we could strengthen the us army in numbers
Should We Use Cloning

Cloning has been a controversy among us for a long time(July 5, 1996.Birth of Dolly The Sheep).Some reasons are Because of religious beliefs.Some religions support cloning and other Religions don't support cloning.The question of when life begins stems from the means in which scientists obtain pluripotent stem cells.They can be harvested from an embryo that has already been through conception, where an organism's cell is infused with a donors egg. In either case, the embryo has to be destroyed in order to actually get its stem cells. The issue of when life begins comes in at this point. "Many religious leaders or people say that destroying the embryo in question would be the same as taking a human life in that they believe that life begins at conception."I think that cloning should be an option so only those who support cloning and the people who don't are both happy.Within the stem cell debate is another controversy dealing with possibilities involved in cloning."Creating a clone is achieved by taking an organism"s cell nucleus and implanting it into an egg cell, and then, as it begins to develop into an embryo, transplanting it into a surrogate mother. This process allows for the creation of an exact copy of the organism donating its cell nucleus. The benefits of cloning are limitless, ranging from being able to create human organs in order to replace faulty ones to the creation of stem cells that could be used to cure terminal illnesses, cancer, and several other physical anomalies."This would be good for people who were born with cancer for example will get More,Better,More Advanced treatment options.This will help the human condition by having important human parts(Legs,arms,etc) available if needed.The Benefits Would be:More treatment options for terminal illnesses,Better understanding of the unknown,Make a better society.The Risks are:The possibilities of "Perfect Children" or "Super Humans".The main Ethical issue might be the one where they are not supportive of cloning but then if it is an option they would not have to.ANSWERS:On the first one if you would have taken the time and actually read my argument then you would know the answer to the first question.Anyway the answer is that it would help the endangered animal population.The answer to question number 2 is yes if they are BORN with it because a clone is a genetic copy of another person or organism so if they were born with it yes.The answer to number 3 is a simple answer.I Don't Know.Their is no way to tell what Specific Mutation there will be until we actually try and due to the huge controversy there's no way to know and if we were to use it we would make it more advanced as the years go by so the ratio of that happening would not happen as much . Do you think CLoning could be an option in the Future? What are the ways Cloning WON'T help the world? Will cloning fix any Current problems that are happening now a days?
Should We Use Cloning

Cloning is extremely wrong and I'm not just saying that based on my opinion it's ethically wrong. It's ethically wrong because of religious beliefs and how it would be considered playing god in many religions. And I know clones could be used as organ donors but what if the clone inherits a disease from the original host. Then the new owner o f the organ would be carrying a living disease around. Benefits:Cloning could be a replacement for natural reproduction and could be a solution to women who can't conceive. Risks:Mutations can occur to any mutated organisms. "Where these new mutations actually come from is still a mystery," said Professor Harverd of Oxford University, these mutations can occur at any time and might cause birth defects. how does cloning effect the environment? can you clone a disease? what mutations can happen while cloning?
Parents should not be allowed to impose religion on their children.

Parents should not be allowed to impose religion on their children. The imposition of a parent's religion on their child should not be allowed due to the fact the child would be unable to determine whether or not that religion suits their own individual viewpoint. This is true for the following reasons; 1. Imposition of religion is harmful to a child's health in both psychological and social ways. 2. The child is likely to maintain that religion throughout his/her adult life and will therefore cause them to be ignorant in the future. 3. The majority of religions are primitive and not fit for the squo 4. Organized religion can have harmful effects on society.
Bad BIOS Malware

I am certainly not an expert on this topic, but I believe the "BadBIOS Malware" is indeed a hoax. For one, Pro's "evidence" that it exists is anecdotal. Simply saying "[BadBIOS] is real because I have experienced it. " is obviously not substantial enough evidence to warrant its existence. I could say the same thing about unicorns and you would (rightfully) be skeptical of my claims. Second, Ruiu (the supposed original source of this malware infectee) has had years to provide concrete evidence of its existence as well, and he has failed to do so. "For instance, security expert Igor Skochinsky, who has dedicated much of his work to investigating rootkits, says he has analyzed the BIOS dump provided by Ruiu and he hasn’t found anything suspicious. " [1] Until we see more evidence, it's unreasonable to say it's not a hoax. Source(s): [1] . http://news.softpedia.com...
Bad BIOS Malware

Most people believe that this type of malware is a Hoax, and that researcher named Ruiu made it up. I believe that this malware is real because I have experienced it. * It is said to infect the low-level system firmware of your computer, so it can"t be removed or disabled simply by rebooting. * It is said to include components that work at the operating system level, so it affects the high-level operation of your computer, too. * It is said to be multi-platform, affecting at least Windows, OS X, and OpenBSD systems. * It is said to prevent infected systems being booted from CD drives. * It is said to spread itself to new victim computers using Software Defined Radio (SDR) program code, even with all wireless hardware removed. * It is said to spread itself to new victim computers using the speakers on an infected device to talk to the microphone on an uninfected one. * It is said to infect simply by plugging in a USB key, with no other action required. * It is said to infect the firmware on USB sticks. * It is said to render USB sticks unusable if they aren"t ejected cleanly; these sticks work properly again if inserted into an infected computer. * It is said to use TTF (font) files, apparently in large numbers, as a vector when spreading. * It is said to block access to Russian websites that deal with reflashing software. * It is said to render any hardware used in researching the threat useless for further testing. * It is said to have first been seen more than three years ago on a Macbook.
Michael Bay should be banned from making new movies

Alright this was suppose to be a fun and silly debate making it as a joke, but since my contender has made a very serious debate, I'll have to debate with a serious attitude. Michael Bay has been the director producer of many films, depicting from the five live action Transformers movies and other war style movies. Michael Bay has made consequential actions in producing movies such as bland and basic CGI explosions, hence many people makes jokes and memes about Michael Bay. I should have argued about not allowing Michael bay produce new films not by law, but by movie corporations that are wanting to make films that fans and critics alike would enjoy. Obviously, there isn't and won't be any law that prevents the creation of a film by a specific person because that would be considered an act against the first amendment of the United States. I want to say is that movie corporations that are wanting to make money and make movies that fans would enjoy, should not allow Michael Bay to produce films as such. The ban is not a by law or by right, but a social ban by movie corporations and fans, like de facto segregation. Michael Bay has damaged the reputation of the Transformers for many fans that enjoyed Transformers in the 20th century. With unique characters and interesting stories told, it sounds like a billion dollar idea to make transformers into a live action movie. In which they did, and they could of done much better. The characters are bland, the CGI is good in the first movie, but takes a 180 and makes it worse. Universal and other film corporations should not allow Michael Bay to produce films as such.
Parents should be fined if their sub-17 year old kid(s) are caught playing M-rated games

I’d like to start off this debate with a quote and I wish good luck to all. "Parents and physicians need to recognize that M-rated video games popular with children and adolescents contain a wide range of often unlabeled content, exposing young people to messages that may negatively influence their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors," said Kimberly Thompson, Associate Professor of Risk Analysis and Decision Science at HSPH. Assertion 1:- M-rated games promote violence “More than a decade ago, the computer game Doom became a focal point when it was revealed that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the teenagers who committed the Columbine High School massacres, were players.(2)” This was the effect of violent video games on young kids. Many believe that violent video games make underage children violent themselves. One of the believers in this theory is Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who introduced a bill in December 2012 to find out the impact of violent video games on children. "At times like this, we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe," says Rockefeller, who serves as Chair of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. "I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day." According to one of his close friends, Adam Lanza, the man who fatally shot 20 children and his own mother, played M-rated games. If M-rated games could cause this sort of problem on a 21-year old then it could totally corrupt a sub-17 year old’s head Assertion 2: M-rated games use a lot of profanity This influence could totally demolish a sub-17 year old’s social life and reputation. For example he/she might use profanity on a teacher, a parent, or a friend and totally ruin the relationship between the 2 people. In a way, M-rated games can end one’s social life and weaken one’s relationship. Sources: 1. http://archive.sph.harvard.edu... 2. http://www.usatoday.com...
Parents should be fined if their sub-17 year old kid(s) are caught playing M-rated games

I thank Con for his quick rsponse!I will first present my remaining assertions an then I will refute.Assertion 3:- M-rated games contain a lot of content that is is not mentioned on the cover"According to a study led by Associate Professor Kimberly Thompsonof the Kids Risk Project at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), 81% of a random sample of Mature-rated video games included content that was not noted on the game box. This is the first independent, quantitative study to characterize content in M-rated games related to violence, blood, sexual themes, substances, profanity, and gambling observed in game play. The study appears in the April 3Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Special Issueon the effects of media on children and adolescents published by the American Medical Association.(1)"Assertion 4:- Purchasing an M-rated game for a minor to play is basically a crimeThere are a few good reasons for this inferance:1. An agency of the government (the ESRB) has made the regulations2. To buy an M-rated game the parent needs to show an ID cardRefutations (I will refute con's arguments one by one):Parental choice:As stated in assertion 3, M-rated video games have a lot of content that isn't mentioned on the cover so the parents may not be prepared for what their child is going to experience.Gun violence:This graph (click the link) should refute his argument.http://www.isteve.com... My opponent's graphs referred to the entire population which is therefore deemed out of context since we are only talking about to sub-17 year olds. Also notice the huge spike in homicides just around the time that DOOM was getting popular. This refutes my opponent's point entitled gun violence.Social Interaction:Kids can interact in T, E10+, and E games as well. M-rated games aren't the only games to have interactions in them and the alternatives are much more age appropriate.I have refuted all of my opponents arguments and it is clear that Pro stands ahead in this debate.Vote Pro!I look forward to the opposition's responseSources:1.http://archive.sph.harvard.edu......