BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ALL women secretly value physical strength above all else in a man.

My topic is that women prefer strength over other traits such as kindness and intelligence. Actually this statement is biologically proven and deemed common knowledge. Women had been choosing men who are strong regardless of them being a jerk, over a weak and kind men. We see it time and time again our lifetimes. The fact is everywhere. 6th graders understand this. All of it is common knowledge. ALL Women are drawn by strength more than any other good inside qualities such as kindness and understanding. It's biogical programming to ensure surivial. Your WAY smarter than me. However I'm defending a statement that had been already PROVEN by science. You can discredit me all you like, it's alot easier than disproving biological truth
ALL women secretly value physical strength above all else in a man.

1. This is not the topic. Of course someone stronger is generally preferable to weak men. But there are two important burdens you have in this debate. One, you have to prove the first word ALL, aka, every single women. Second you have to prove "above all else in a man", aka, strength above every other trait in men. 2. You can't post links and expect someone to read it as your argument. We don't specifically know your argument. 3. That's fine, but unless you cite evidence the only way to find out is going. 4. I don't need evidence because the burden of proof isn't shared here. You have the burden as the affirmative. Also, you don't provide evidence for what you said at the end. 5. Women prefer someone kind over a jerk that's strong.
ALL women secretly value physical strength above all else in a man.

1. My whole point of this argument is woman would pick strong men over physically weak men, regardless of their traits. 2. http://www.returnofkings.com... 3. I mentioned California because a lot of women participate in bodybuilding over there, and there are a lot of wimpy guys there. This was to debunk the obvious myth that all men are stronger. 4. You need to provide evidence too. Despite how many strong women and physically weak men there are, all women end up choosing a physically stronger man. Their FINAL decision in picking a man is GREATLY influenced by his strength. 5. The only way your gonna win this is by criticizing my sub par debating skills, rather than proving me wrong.
ALL women secretly value physical strength above all else in a man.

It's explicit that Pro means to prove that (ALL) every single woman who has ever lived values physical strength over everything else. So let's analyze Pro's case. 1) The first part shows that women are less prone to be in a relationship with someone stronger than with someone that's not. Even if this were true, this doesn't prove it to be the dominant quality in men. This just shows that if they had the choice of no strength vs strength, they would pick strength. 2) This is a hypothetical without any substance and just plainly false. Those qualities don't go away just because they're not strong. 3) I'm not going to California to win this debate. 4) No evidence (studies, surveys, etc.) 5) Pro hasn't met their burden.
ALL women secretly value physical strength above all else in a man.

Women value physical strength in man. To be more specific, women are less prone to be romantically involved in a relationship if she is physically stronger or more dominant. Lets say a man starts going out with a woman. He goes on a couple of dates with her. He has a lot of qualities, he's funny,compassionate,kind, easygoing, and smart. These are traits any average women would want. However one day she found out she was strong than him. All of a sudden non of his good qualities matter anymore. She prefers a partner that can protect her. Lets say that there is a lot of women physically stronger than average guys, which most people claim is a myth. However if you don't believe me I challenge to you travel to places like California.
PS3 is better than Xbox 360

PS3: Positives: -Better hardware. It's a much more powerful machine. -Better processing power -Bluray disks can hold expansively more data than 360 HDdvd disks -PS3 has 7 core processers, as oppossed to the Xbox360's 3 processers. -Uses Cell proccessing. -Standard HD Free online play -Able to install Linux since my opponent didnt really make much of an argument why the 360 is a better CONSOLE. Just meerely stated him opinion and not the facts. And went on and on about some game convention that makes no difference in how the consoles perform I will just state the positives of having a ps3 as opposed to a 360
Abortion should only be legal until a way is found to safely bring an embryo to term in a lab.

Anyone taking an unconditional stance on abortion, whether in favor of it or opposed to it, would potentially be an acceptable opponent for this debate. Pity that the system doesn't allow for three sides, because I'd ideally have liked to see one representative from each camp. I'm approaching my position on this argument from a somewhat United States oriented ethical philosophy, so it would be helpful if you were generally accepting of US philosophies, at least in terms of the contents of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. I have no particular "rules" for debate, other than that the goal should be to get as close to the top of the debate pyramid as possible (google 'debate pyramid' if you don't know what I'm talking about).
The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits

I'm not exactly sure how to respond.A) You did not source your arguments like I asked of you. Simply stating them is not enough, I could pull out any statistic or quote and say it came from a newspaper.B) You haven't read my arguments. For example, I rebutted your contention on the individual's standpoint by pointing out that in the long run College graduates earn nearly twice as much as high school graduates, making investing 20,000 - 30,000 dollars in post-secondary education an efficient and thoroughly beneficial investment.Please take the time to reread and construct actual arguments before posting your response. Thank you.
Drabble Competition

The elderly lady entered her granddaughter`s bedroom where the young girl lay warm under her covers, unable to sleep. She rolled onto her back when she heard her grandmother take a seat on the small wooden chair that sat next to her bed. She looked at the clock that sat on the dresser at the end of her bed. It was past her bedtime and she suddenly felt nervous and worried that her grandmother would scold her for not being asleep yet. "Yes grandma?" she asked. "You are having trouble sleeping. Would you like to hear a story?" she replied.
Drabble Competition

In the lands of Gainsar, where my fathers lived, there was a tale of a man named Hun who ate his village. It was a simple story, but it scared us sure enough. Here is how it went. In the village of Tambo lived a man named Hun. He was a fur trader, and he killed fox as bear kills man. So, he came into town one day to sell his furs, but he was met by a man. The man pulled a knife on him, and he died quickly, but not before saying, "Fimo Curse you". The man laughed.
Drabble Competition

"Now, as the butterfly visited me more and more, I felt better. I was happy and my sickness began to go away. Even after spring had passed, she still came to me every day. So, soon, I was completely cured from my sickness and on the day I was to leave the hospital, the butterfly came to me and landed in my palm. Now, she was very old and sadly passed away in my hand. I had given her a name and that name was Julia. You are named after her because you dear, are just like a beautiful butterfly." Thank you anyways. I had fun :)
Drabble Competition

"A butterfly!?" the girl suddenly became very excited. She had taken quite an interest in insects and loved to watch butterflies in the spring. "Yes dear." Her grandmother replied. "She was a real butterfly. Just like the ones you like to watch in the garden in the spring. But this butterfly was different. She could speak. Just like you and me. And when she spoke, it was a high-pitched beautiful sound that I loved to hear." "I want a speaking butterfly, Grandma!" the girl shouted with excitement. "Shh. Quiet dear. And one day you may get your beautiful, speaking butterfly."
Drabble Competition

The young girl nodded her head and so her grandmother began, "Long ago, when I was very young, I was very sick." "What happened grandma?" the girl interrupted. "I will tell you dear. I had a very serious illness that I was lucky to live through. Now don`t be worried dear, I am alright now. But back then, I was lucky to have a friend to help me through it all. That friend of mine was pretty and sweet like you but, of course not as much. That friend was not a girl like you though. She was a butterfly."
Drabble Competition

The man went to bed. He counted the skins. There were only 20. He sighed. This man was no good at his job. He then had a good night's sleep. He then woke up, but something was off. He had a cold. No problem, he'd just sell his pelts. He went to town to sell one. When he got there, he saw a woman crying. He approached her, and she looked at him. It was Hun's mother. She was weeping. She yelled, "NOW THE FIMO UPON YOU!" He jumped. Whatever the fimo was, it was an extremely malevolent, evil curse.
Bring it.

My bad, I meant all political leaders, including religious ones, not Plato and Aristotle's definitions, and I certainly do not believe tour guides are leaders, they are guides, and guides are not tyrannical. All political leaders pick an adversary and woo allies in order to place their supporters in a better position of power, with little to no regard as to who is under their direct political enemies that will bear the brunt of their aspirations, which is to lead the people. This is the truth.
Bring it.

Pro argues every leader is a tyrant. I can disprove that merely by showing there likely exists a leader who is not a tyrant. Definitions A leader is someone whom people follow. There are leaders in government (people follow their authority). There are leaders in popular culture (people follow their trends). There are leaders in businesses, families, games, and every form of group interaction where everyone does not just do whatever he feels like doing. Even a tour guide is a leader. A tyrant, by Plato's and Aristotle's definition, "rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics"against his own people as well as others." [1] Counterexamples to Pro's position There are leaders who do not rule at all. A tour guide merely guides people on a path and teaches them about what they see. They follow because they want to. They can leave at any time. There are leaders who rule by law. In the US, we elect people into Congress. They are leaders and their job is simply to write laws for people to follow. They do not have the authority to tell citizens what to do without writing it in the form of a law that must be approved by several hundred other people. There are leaders who rule without law, but they look to their subjects' advantages rather than their own. Parents have authority over their children. You could say parents "rule" their children when they tell them to eat their vegetables, go to bed on time, etc., even when the children do not want to. Parents do this so their children will grow up healthy and strong, which is clearly to the advantage of the children. In similar ways, I could show there are leaders who rule without law and look to their own advantage but do not use extreme and cruel tactics. I could also show there are leaders who rule without law, look to their own advantage, and use extreme and cruel tactics, just not against their own people. But I think I have proven my point. Sources [1] http://www.mconway.net...
America is better than Britain

A Brief Critique of My Opponent's ArgumentsMy opponent claims America has the most advanced technology. This is not true. First, according to the Global Innovation index, Switzerland is the most innovative, followed by Sweden. The United Kingdom is a full two places ahead of the U.S, coming third. When we look at download speeds by country, we find that the United States is ranked 32nd, with an average speed of 21.41 mbps. The United Kingdom on the other hand, is 28th, with an average speed of 23.42 mbps. My opponent then claims that America is the most free country in the world. Both socially and economically, this is not true. In social liberty, New Zealand comes first, whilst America is 20th. The United Kingdom is 16th. In terms of economic freedom, the United States comes 12th. Granted, the United Kingdom comes 14th, but this completely refutes my opponent's assertion that America is the most free country in the world. [4]My opponent also claims that education in America proves that America is better. Whilst this may be true for tertiary education, for secondary education this is completely untrue. The PISA rankings demonstrate this. For reading, the United States came 36th in the world, as compared to the United Kingdom, which came 26th. For Maths, the United States came 28th, in contrast to the United Kingdom (20th). Finally, for science, the United States came 24th, and was slightly pipped by the United Kingdom, which came 23rd. [5] My opponent claims that America developed English to be better in many ways. He never specifies how this is so. This is a bare-assertion fallacy. Whether American English is better than British English is completely subjective. In conclusion, my opponent has not even demonstrated that America is better than the United Kingdom. He claims that America is the best country in the world, but his reasoning for this is poor. He has not affirmed the resolution. Vote Con. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Cornell_University,_INSEAD_and_WIPO)#Rankings[2] http://www.netindex.com...;[3] http://patrickrhamey.com...;[4] http://www.heritage.org...;[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Animals should NOT be kept in zoos,

I believe that animals should NOT be kept in zoos unless they are injured or unhealthy but then when they are better they will be sent back out in the wild. An African man was put in a cage at a zoo because he was black and people believed he was close to being a monkey rather than a human, people than found that wrong. Even though he was fed well and he could move around people understood what he was saying and how he felt because he was their own species he was still human. Eventually people protested for his right to be set free. We cant have conversations with lions and elephants etc. We don't know what their saying. We don't know how they feel. I bet they would feel like how that man felt in the cage. We have no right to take animals away from their families for our own entertainment. Your not seeing the true king of the jungle when he's stuck behind a glass wall or in a cage. In conclusion animals should NOT be kept in zoos. Thank you and good luck.
Battlefield is Better than Call Of Duty

Call Of Duty, has just way too many people hurting the gaming community, whether it be hackers or overzealous 5 year olds, the game is a cesspool of horrible gamers. The Battlefield community is a peace of art, it makes the players work together for a common objective. Whether that objective be to blow up the enemy base or to capture an objective, it all requires teamwork. Unlike COD (Call Of Duty), you can actually drive/fly vehicle in Battlefield. Also, there are more Easter eggs in Battlefield than in COD by nearly twice as much. The gaming community in Battlefield is a great place to make friends. In my Clan, the Night Stalkers, I have made some of the best friends of my life.
Sea food is gross

Accepted. Firstly, Pro is exclusively arguing from personal opinion and thus not making an objective case; or asserting their argument to be correct in any way. Simply stating "sea food is gross" does not constitute a valid case. Seafood is in fact one of the healthiest foods you can eat and has a number of health benefits [1.] http://seafoodhealthfacts.org... These benefits specifically come with eating fish [2.] http://www.everydayhealth.com... Additionally, many people genuinely enjoy the taste of seafood--therefore contradicting Pros claim that it is entirely "gross".
Why do people think that God is not real

Thanks to Pro for her concluding remarks. I think the best thing to do at this point is merely underline the naked bare assertion fallacy of Pros final argument. However to conclude Pro asked me to: 1. State one reason why you think that god is or isn't real 2. Prove your point 3. State a strong reason why we should believe or not believe in God In my R1 opening I have met all conditions laid out by Pro. Pro has failed to rebut these point or offer anything other than fallacy ridden commentary. Pros positions therefore falls.
Why do people think that God is not real

I have clearly laid out my case and addressed the challenge put up by Pro in full. Unless and until Pro addresses the substanative points in this debate, My arguments stand and disprove god/gods. Thus Pro is defeated unless he/she can offer something and my job is done. There is thus limited utility in a rejoinder as Pro is entitled to believe in magic (miracles) if he/she wishes. It just isn't worth wasting electrons defeating the point, As I trust the reader to understand it is merely a rather inept argument from ignorance (and not a well thought out argument for Theism). Good luck Pro and thanks for the debate.
Gender equality does no harm at all to society.

In a constructive debate, I find the learning experience more important than victory, more informative and memorable than a class lecture, better feedback than a test, the foundation to the scientific method, last but not least, the evolution of ideas or cultural norms. You do not find those dynamics in a static text book, where the text book are results from past debates and used as references or building blocks in future debates. Thank you Con, for the learning experience in the evolution of ideas.
Gender equality does no harm at all to society.

I understand Con. Time management could be challenging thrashing between many debates. And in saying that, I think we made our solid points in the previous Rounds. Con did mentioned “women are naturally weaker” than men. Pro would not want to experience child birth. In addition, Pro knows woman who are stronger than Pro, could drive a golf ball further than Pro, smarter than Pro, etc. After pointing out differences between men and women throughout the debate Con closed with the following phrase, “... that is unequal in itself ...”Con is stating the obvious, about “unequal” for no two men or no two women are equal. We are all unique individuals and no two are alike! Again, “Gender equality ... refers to the view that men and women should receive equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against based on gender, unless there is a sound biological reason for different treatment.” http://en.wikipedia.org... Nowhere in that definition implies men and women are to be considered equal. It is the “equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against” relative to the individual's Unalienable Rights. If Con is still “cut for time,” in Round 5, we could place a, “null argument” to expedite the voting phase. Good luck Con in your other debates, and I look forward to meeting you again on the debating floor.
Gender equality does no harm at all to society.

I will post few arguments, as I am cut on time and I have spend the little time I have on other debates. Pro has to fulfill BoP. Which I believe they have not done. Vote con! Gender equality is not achievable, because women are naturally weaker and more submissive than men. So if we force some women/men to accept the other gender's role (e.g. women being the bread-maker or the dad staying at home and watching kids/cleaning/cooking.), that is unequal in itself, and will only do more harm than good. (proof is in a previous round.)
Gender equality does no harm at all to society.

My Friend SGM_iz_SckC (Con), I'm looking forward for a learning experience we both can enjoy during this debate.Since Con left no limits on the definition of “gender equality,” leaves the field open for Pro to make the following claim: “Gender equality does no harm at all to society” for “gender equality” is simply the equal endowment, pertaining to all of humanity, having the same and equal Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Since all humanity, including those who are focus on genitalia, have “equality” in Unalienable Rights as defined by the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made; therefore, such “equality does no harm at all to society” in the mutual pursuit of “Happiness,” is my Burden of Proof (BoF). http://www.bookdaily.com...
Social Media

Again though these are facts that people have complete control over, and are not hidden from us. Everyone knows that they should not do these things, so blaming social media is an unfair case. Yes they are addicting, but people just need to tell themselves they won't use their phone/computer/tablet after a certain time to allow themselves to get a good night's sleep. And while they may be the cause of some health problems, they can also help with others. If your ankle is hurting you can find exercises to make it feel better, if you want to lose that muffin top there are work outs galore (free of charge) to watch on Youtube, and eating healthier can be started by simply creating a new board on Pinterest. The world is opened up by clicking on a browser and searching a phrase on Google. Also phones are now so versatile you can use them to counter act sleeping problems and relax. i have an app on my phone called Take a Break, which is essentially listening to a Shavasana (relaxation) yoga class, and helps me calm down, de-stress and fall asleep almost instantly. The same device which causes harm to use, when used correctly and without excess can help "heal us" in a sense, as long as we use good judgement.
Social Media

Yes, while privacy setting are something you have complete control over, there are still ways to get around them especially if someone is trained in computer technology, which many people are these days. The social media of Twitter and Facebook is great for getting information out there, but how much is too much? Twitter especially, it allows people to get everyone updated on everything they do every minute of the day. And addiction to these social networks can affect a persons health. Many people never let go of their phones or computers until its time to go to bed, and even then they are still just sending out that last email, or checking on what their friends did that day. Research proves that when you stay on your phone at late hours of the night, that it impairs your ability to fall asleep. Your brain is still functioning at a high pace when you are looking a pictures or reading posts. Your brain needs time to relax after a long, busy day.
Social Media

Well yes but those settings are something you have complete control over. No one forces you to have an open profile in the same way no one forces you to have a closed one. If safety is a major concern of social media then it is a very fix. Privacy settings exist both on Facebook and Twitter to keep people safe, and can be accessed simply by clicking a button. I know that without the power of these sites I would have lost touch with some people who I hope will always be in my life to an extent. I have friends everywhere from down the street to South Africa, Sweden, Washington, Israel and more. Every time I log onto Facebook I am able to see what's going on in their lives, and how they are doing. Even just staying connected with their small, more insignificant thoughts is a great reason to continue the use of things like Twitter, which is arguably worse than Facebook as it can be more "addicting" yet it is a greater source of instant contact and can be a great news source.