BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women equal to men.

MEN ARE NOT DOMINANT AND AT TIMES ARE NOT USEFUL! YOU LAY AROUND AND BE LAZY AND DRINK BEER AND BE STUPID AND IGNORANT! IF THERE WAS NO WOMAN ON THIS PLANET THAN YOU MALES WOULD HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO EXCEPT BE STUPID! IF THERE WERE NO WOMAN THE PLANET WOULD BE DESTROYED IN A FEW DAYS BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD CARE ABOUT THE PLANET AND THE ONLY PEOPLE LIVING THERE WOULD BE IN LOVE WITH THEMSELVES AND BE GLUED TO THE MIRROR THINKING HOW WONDERFUL THEY ARE! EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T!!!! WHY THE HECK DO YOU MEN THINK YOU CONTROL US OR SOMETHING? YOU DON'T! AND YOUR NOT DOMINANT OVER US!!! AND ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF MEN COOK IN THE WORLD....IF THERE WERE NO FEMALES YOU WOULD BE EATING GRASS OFF OF THE FLIPPING GROUND!! AND ANYWAYS YOU WOULDN'T BE ALIVE BECAUSE YOU WERE BORN FROM WOMAN!!!! SO IF THERE WERE NO WOMAN YOU WOULDN'T BE ALIVE AND NONE OF YOUR FRIENDS EITHER!!! YOU SHOULD BE GRATEFUL IF ANYTHING THAT THERE ARE WOMAN ON THIS PLANET AND ITS NOT FULL OF IGNORANT, SELFISH, UNCARING, STUPID, MEN!!!! No insult meant to anyone but I get extremely mad when men say they are dominant and were not equals. Not all men are stupid just the male chauvinists who think they are better than everyone and don't care about the world issues of our planet.
Women equal to men.

Men are definitely the dominant gender. All physical sports are either exclusive or dominated by men (NFL, baseball, basketball, boxing...). Women have to have their own separate category of themselves to compete in these sports. If women are equal, then they should be drafted into the military along with men. Women rarely get to power politically by their own. A court or legislature usually has to mandate their participation. Women are good at making babies. Even the best cooks are men. If men didn't want women for sex, there wouldn't be a reason to have them around.
Women equal to men.

"So now it comes out. You're a vegetarian animal rights babe. Animals and women were put on this earth to serve man. We can't own slaves anymore, and you women won't do any of the hard work you used to, so where does that leave us men? I can't put a harness around your neck, so an oxen or horse are the next best thing." No I eat meat but at the same time think its cruel. But when I get a little older I might be a vegetarian. Anyways, women do a lot of hard work. They clean much more and take care of the kids. 99% of the time, woman are at home taking care of the children while the men are off doing things. Like work, but when they are at home they usually don't take responsibility for the kids. And don't try to tell me that your fixing things around the house would be harder than taking care of kids, cause its not. And woman could fix things to, and they do. And some woman, for example my mom, is divorced and is in college and has 4 jobs and is doing the best she can to take care of us. She is a great mom and tries really hard. And if I could pick one amazing woman award for someone it would be her. She barely has any money and spends it all on us. "I just don't understand way you are so huffy about my position." Why wouldn't I be "huffy" about what you think, men and woman are equals and have exactly the same rights and men do not own woman and certainly will never have power over them. And by the way, you spelled why wrong smarty. :) "It's well thought through, supported historically (look how lazy you look compared to pilgrim women), and many of us men believe the way I do. Pilgrims? Really? Pilgrim woman did exactly what we do now only not every woman does the same thing. They sewed, cleaned, cooked, washed clothes, looked after the children, many of those things. What did you men do? You hunted. Wow. Many woman hunt now and do other extraordinary things many men never dream of doing. And saying a lot of things are more modern today then they were so long ago, they can do them better. I love how you use the word "us" its like your talking about a whole different species. Men and woman are the same species. Think about it like this: if men cleaned and cooked and sewed and took care of children and did all those other things and woman did all the things men do now, like what most men do, sit down and watch tv, or go to war, not saying that woman don't, would you think that woman were dominant over men? And both men and woman work. Woman and men do the same things pretty much, and some do different stuff, but they just do them differently.
Women equal to men.

"And a lot of woman do those things anyways because lots of woman own farms. And DON'T use the animals for inhumane things like killing them for meat.... so mean. Or working them to the bone with jobs." So now it comes out. You're a vegetarian animal rights babe. Animals and women were put on this earth to serve man. We can't own slaves anymore, and you women won't do any of the hard work you used to, so where does that leave us men? I can't put a harness around your neck, so an oxen or horse are the next best thing. I just don't understand way you are so huffy about my position. It's well thought through, supported historically (look how lazy you look compared to pilgrim women), and many of us men believe the way I do. You'll see when the voting starts after we conclude this debate. Thank you for a lively debate.
Women equal to men.

"I'm close to the ground anyway. I don't see you women mowing lawns." What are you talking about tons of woman mow lawns all the time. Its not like you guys mow them all the time. "Men who fight and die in wars (99% of war casualties are men). Men who do all the dirty, unpleasant things for women, like taking out the trash, shoveling excrement from the barn, bailing your kid out of jail. Would you like to take over some of those duties?" Woman are in wars too and its almost 50% for each but not yet cause woman started a little while ago so its not even yet. And a lot of woman are alone with their children because the man who got her pregnant ran away because they were to afraid to take care of their child and the responsibility, so the woman do do those things. And a lot of woman do those things anyways because lots of woman own farms. And DON'T use the animals for inhumane things like killing them for meat.... so mean. Or working them to the bone with jobs. "So you don't like real men, just the effeminate types? Real men care about world issues. The difference is that real men don't cower in the corner or run from a battle. The stand and fight evil. They fight for truth, justice and the American way. The effeminate types think like you." Not all men who believe woman are equals don't care about the earth. Anyways, how would you know that?? Did you go around the world asking all the men if they thought woman were equal and then asked them if they cared about world issues?? "Without sperm, you wouldn't be alive either. Leave my friends out of it." Thanks for proving my point. No one would be alive and that includes you...and your friends. I was just saying that.
The soul is not a real thing

By the reading of the resolution this clearly is a "fact" debate.I look forward to this topic and am very intrigued where Pro will take this.A couple of things worth mentioning:BOP is on Pro.Definition of soul, "The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal."http://www.google.com...Considering the soul as being "traped inside a fleshy body" is rather childish. Most like the childish heaven, "if it exists, exists in the clouds above." If the immaterial exists it is all and consumes all and the limitations of the material and biological become obscure. If the immaterial exists it exists in a fashion thats rather impossible to comprehend while bound in the material world. So knowing that it's "traped" in our bodies is rather ambitious. This is a debate that often people taken for granted. We're debating something very abstract and something that carries alot of magnitude on the overall picture of the universe. By the abstract nature of this topic it becomes arduous to interject a logic and scientific argument, excluding Christain arguments like the Transcendental and Cosmos. By the definition of soul it seperates itself from the poducts of science, as it is immaterial. By the definition of soul it seperates itself from formal logical arguments, as it is a product of the heavens, and humans being materially constricted could only know the answer definitively if he or she is in the heavens. When I die, I go to heaven, so then I definitively know there is soul.When I die, blackness consumes, then I know nothing because I am dead. But looking at it third person, I know definitively there is no soul.If soul exists, if it truly exists, then reality becomes much more complex and rich. But to put claim it is such or is it not such definitively, is greatly premature. As this great question in life is only answered absolute in death, it becomes foolhardy to absolutely claim "the soul is not a real thing."With that preamble,I await my opponents arguments that there is no such soul-enriched reality, and it is definitively only as blunt as we see it.An amitious claim, indeed, so like I said I am greatly intrigued how my opponent solves this by the calling of the resolution.
The soul is not a real thing

You have conceded my rebuttals, as you have no response. And because you can't bring up new items of topic in the final round they have gone dropped.So even though I told my opponent in Round 2 that I could just talk about BOP all day I won't because that's lame, he has decided to make this about BOP. So lets do soBURDEN OF PROOFMega-antitheist is not understanding what I have been saying this whole entire, so I will explain this in a very detailed manner.In round 1 I said, "This is clearly a fact debate"I said this because there is a "is" in the resolution."Is" makes a definitive claim because there is no question of validity when something "is" something else. Contrasted to, say, when something "is more probable," which creates a resolution not of certainity but of probability. But this resolution,"The soul is not a real thing"is claiming the soul definitively does not exist.Therein to prove such resolution one must show how this claim is definitive.^^^^^That is the burden of Pro^^^^^So how am I interacting with the resolution?I am Con, as in against the resolution. My position is that the resolution is wrong because it is making a definitive, certain claim on the abtract, immaterial topic of soul which cannot be made until death.In Round 1 and Round 2 I gave reasons as to why this is.I have faith souls exist, but I do not know for sure. And I will never claim such.My opponent says, "You say a soul is real." Wrong, I said, " This is an important word to note--faith.It is not definitive. It is not absolute. It is faith.I am not saying anywhere in this debate that the soul is definitively certain.I am upholding that it cannot be said that it definitively does not exist. "SO TO OTHER THINGS MENTIONEDMega-antitheist claims, "You need to prove to me that a soul is real."No I don't for the above reason. I'm not taking that approach. I'm saying it's impossible to say that there certainly is not a soul until your dead. Your reading this thus your not dead. Therein you can't know certainly. So inevitably the resolution is impossible for you in your lively form to uphold. Mega-antitheist runs on with a sentence so let me disect, "And since you dont think that a soul has personality (unlike many other people) [THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THESE MANY PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT GIVES ME ALOT TO OFFER A REBUTTAL TO] and simply believe that it is responsible for immortality [NOW YOUR STEPPING INTO THE REALM OF THEOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS, WHICH I'M GUESSING IS OUTSIDE OF YOUR LEAGUE SINCE YOUR MEGA ANTI. BUT LETS SAY IT WAS, I'VE NEVER HEARD THE TWO WORDS 'SIMPLY' AND 'IMMORTALITY' IN THE SAME SENTENCE BEFORE. BUT IT ALSO ANSWERS FOR 'SALVATION', 'GRACE', 'FREEDOM', AND 'JUSTICE.'] then you can't measure it in this life do why believe it because your scared of the consequences [FLIP IT!! YOUR SCARED THAT YOU'D HAVE TO ANSWER TO A MAKER AND YOUR NOT THE ULTIMATE GOD OF YOUR OWN LIFE...there's no validility to such statements. Everyone looks for their own truth for distinguishable reasons.] if you don't for no real reason other than that."
The soul is not a real thing

This whole argument is useless unless you accept that you carry at least some of the burden of proof. You say a soul is real I say it isn't prove it to me you refuse to do that and say that I have to disprove you're beleif therefore saying that beleif is the default position. You need to prove to me that a soul is real do some philosophy show me ehy you believe? And since you dont think that a soul has personality (unlike many other people) and simply believe that it is responsible for immortality then you can't measure it in this life do why believe it because your scared of the consequences if you don't for no real reason other than that.
The soul is not a real thing

Now when you say that it is impossible to have a scientific argument is why I also included philosophical arguments. Now onto my arguments since I cannot disprove something like this because I don't beleive it, I will have to resort to poking holes in the theory. So when someone has multipule personality disorder do they have multiple souls? When you say that the only way that you can know that a soul exists is when you are dead then why beleive, there are no other feilds that, that logic would be accepted. Right now we have a good understanding of the brain and almost all emotions can be explained with chemical reactions and darwinism leaving little room for the idea of a soul. Since we cannot measure a soul it is impossible to know that it exists and to beleive it until it is proven wrong means that you have to beleive everything, disbeleif is the default position.
90% of the British public should back my plans for a socialist revolution

I consider it my privilege to respond to my opponent's arguments as he is recognised as a seasoned debater and his strongly-held views are widely respected. Notwithstanding his forceful (and seemingly convincing) statements, however, I should like to remind the voters that he is more than capable of distorting the facts to suit his own ends - not that there is anything wrong with that, this is a debating competition after all! My point is only this: please don't be persuaded by his stereotypical characterisation of socialism because the reality is, in fact, much different to the myth. Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe. As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy. Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work. He is still there now, by the way, although the factory now makes Volkswagen cars. As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still). In addition, my father-in-law also had 24-hour use of a chauffeured limousine. You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism (and my mother in law, like most of the older generations, much regret its demise because they were better off under that system). But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work, within a liberal (i.e. non-conformist) framework which can interact competitively in an global marketplace. That, essentially, is the key difference between socialism and communism. Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial, but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few. This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income, but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. Thank you.
90% of the British public should back my plans for a socialist revolution

Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities - but that is to confuse socialism with communism. Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government. For example, Denmark is governed by a liberal / socialist coalition. As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. . https://www.cia.gov... . http://www.nationmaster.com... . http://www.cnn.com... The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water (or bubbly) as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. Even after over 10 years of a Labour government, wealth inequality in the UK remains one of the highest in the world. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society – the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform. The Socialist Worker Party's stance is: "The present system cannot be patched up — it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people's lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system. Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need. " . http://www.swp.org.uk... Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent, it is time to sweep away the inequality of the past and move on to create a brighter, fairer future where the whole of society has the opportunity to thrive. Thank you.
90% of the British public should back my plans for a socialist revolution

The problem with this plan is that it has no sense of consequences beyond the range of the moment. You can loot all you like right now, but in doing so, you send a signal to the market: "There shall be no rewards for working." Working is costly, without benefits proportional to the cost, it disappears. And then what? You'll force people to work? The mind cannot be forced, though the body can. You can, perhaps, turn the UK into an agricultural nation where there is enough food to keep perhaps half the people from starving, on a model similar to the agriculture of the American South antebellum, except with less land to work with and no way to reward your overseers. With luck and a lot more skill than you've probably got. But it will be hell once the loot from your revolution disappears, for the modern economy will be impossible, can you imagine a modern engineer or programmer or factory planner working on the threat of force with no reward? It's not even possible, the mind functions worse the more force is placed upon it, this is why people don't typically invent great things in prison :) The medieval economy-- that is the limit of the fully consistent socialist economy, things beyond it are only possible to the extent you deviate from that model.
90% of the British public should back my plans for a socialist revolution

Look out all you aristocrats, members of the landed gentry and mega-rich tycoons, sitting there in your stately homes, manor houses and palatial penthouses – your days of lording it over the proletariat are numbered. The oppressed masses from the working classes will soon unite with the lower and upper-middle classes and, under my leadership, rise up and overthrow your feudalistic reign of patronage and privilege. But don't press the panic button MI5, this transition of power will be a peaceful one becuase it will be supported by the 90% of the population that will benefit from it. You see, in the UK: 93% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 50% of the population; 72% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 25% of the population; 53% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 10% of the population; 40% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 5% of the population and 21% of the nation's personal wealth is owner by the richest 1% of the population. http://www.statistics.gov.uk... So, come the Revolution when I am duly installed as the rightful dictator of the new United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; I will immediately institute a mass redistribution of wealth. Let's make the math(s) easy and say the total population of the UK is 1,000,000 and the total personal wealth is ï¿½100,000,000,000 (the actual figures are: a population of 60,975,000 with a total personal wealth of ï¿½6,998,000,000,000; so the model fits the actual to within 5%). http://www.statistics.gov.uk... http://www.statistics.gov.uk... At the moment the average net worth per person across the whole of the population is ï¿½100,000, although the richest half is worth an average of ï¿½186,000 while the poorest half is worth an average of just ï¿½14,000. However, once in power, I would redistribute the pot so that 90% of the population are better off as follows: 53% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people. They represent 10% of the population, so I will let them keep 10% of the wealth. They will then each be worth ï¿½100,000. The remaining 43% of the wealth will be divided between the remaining 90% of the population so that they each get ï¿½47,000. Then the poorest 50% will be worth an average ï¿½61,000 and the richest 40% will be worth an average of ï¿½233,000 – the richest half of the population will thus become approximately 4 times wealthier than the poor half - as opposed to 14 times wealthier, as they are today. So we can see that 90% of the population benefit from a one-off lump sum payment with the poorest half of the population being the biggest percentage gainers. Of course the 10% of the population that were formerly the richest in society might object to this plan, as their wealth would be reduced to the net worth of the average person. However, democratic principles apply even in a socialist state and it is only fair that the many benefit from the sacrifice of the over-privileged few. Support the Revolution! Vote Pro. Thank you. http://polizeros.com...