BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Microagressions and safe spaces

I believe you have offered enough evidence to argue why they are important on your own. "the casual degradation of any marginalized group". This leads to many questions and claims about free speech and what we have the right to do. See [2. and 3] from the Claims. If your idea of free speech involves "the casual degradation of any marginalized group" by using microaggressions, you are therefore limiting that group from having their right to the 1st amendment. Also if the people that are speaking about their concerns about microaggressions or the ones who are afflicted from their use are people that you do not like, agree with, or allow their voice to be heard then you are doing so from your own "safe space". Different people are offended by different things and that keeps changing so the problem should be with the constitution as it can't accommodate for vast political divides and cultures. PC exists to allow people the right to express their beliefs and not be attacked for doing so
Microagressions and safe spaces

First off, the general definition of a microagression is "the casual degradation of any marginalized group". This leads to many questions and claims about free speech and what we have the right to do. Claims: 1. Microaggressions and political correctness is far overdone if a real issue at all. 2. Not only do we as citizens and people within a democracy have the right to share out opinions, but also the duty to share them as differing views will strengthen the goals of a society and a nation. 3. Calling something a microagression and claiming that it shouldn't be said is a violation of the 1st amendment because it limits the freedom of speech of others. If something as small as saying "God bless" can be offensive, and therefore a microagression, our society has become too "politically correct" and doesn't value freedom of speech. Please see the following videos for explanation of my argument.
Microagressions and safe spaces

I'm eager for debates and already taken on 2 difficult arguments so why not another! My argument is in favor of a wider acceptance and understanding of the definition of microaggression and their negative effects on society, culture and individual peoples lives. Due to the unclear definition of who and what qualifies as someone who has a "safe space", my argument will be based around discrediting their existence, and demonstrating that we all have our own variation on "safe spaces" whether we realize that or not. Finally, I will also be arguing in favor of Political Correctness, something I never thought I would do, although I fully acknowledge how this can and is taken too far in some circles, and will offer arguments to why it goes too far, how some of the fault can be blamed on not acknowledging their concerns, and that the extreme ideology of a few does not define political correctness or negate the important role it has. I don't know if I should wish you luck or me! =P
Bush did the right thing when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not even going to start on Wikipedia- the fact that you can edit almost anything into or out of the articles. Second- Yes. The US did attempt diplomatic relations. If the Taliban were our allies, they would have handed him over without a comment. The Taliban DID refuse to hand him over so the US (and virtually everybody in it) supported the war. If you can remeber, think back to 2001, when we saw 2,974 people die in the terrorist attacks. If you hadn't supported the war from the beginning, you were (and in my mind still are) unpatriotic. "So, if the United States is to have friends, they must obey are every command and give us every suspected criminal in their boundary?" No and how dare you suggest such a thing. If Germany had had a terrorist attack and the US was harboring the criminal, the entire world would be up in arms about how evil the US is and how they don't help their allies. And you know that would happen because you are one of the ones who would be saying it. "Justice", which by the way seems to be your new favorite word, is subjective. If a criminal kills someone, maybe he thinks that justice. I don't. The guy who claimed that the "documents were forged" was: a) looking for 15 minutes of fame b) how would he know if the documents were forged? c) what would the point be of forging documents? "The scenario of armed robbery is not pertinent to this situation because Iraq never made any threats against the United States and was proven to have no yellow cake when the United Nations nuclear inspection team investigated" Someone doesn't know their history because when I said "Iraq" I meant it's evil dictator. You know, the one who's regime we successfully overthrew. I'm sorry for the confusion. (Duh!) Yellow cake is yellowcake- the point is that he had it and you were not correct. It doesn't have to be "the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed". It is yellow cake. I have another question for you- If the UK had had a cruel dictator, would we have done the same thing? Yes, absolutely. PS- I am not going to try anymore. You libs have closed minds (for the most part) and I have no doubt that you will never listen.
Bush did the right thing when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I meant see the video, I meant be reminded why we got involved in the Middle East's problems in the first place. I do intend to prove that Bush did the "right" thing so don't think you got me by picking at my words. Afghanistan- The goals in the war here were and still are "right" and "just". How can you destroy a terrorist group without getting rid of a government (if you can call the Taliban that) that harbours them? Osama bin Laden is an evil person, there is no other way to say it. We do know he and many of his men just under him did help plan and execute 9/11. By the way, never use Wikipedia for it only tells you what you want to say- the United States DID attempt diplomatic relations as you mentioned two paragraphs above. 1. Bush did not lie to the people of America, the Taliban, if friendly to us, would have handed him over instantly. Instead, they did not. 2. Attacking the Taliban was justice as all TRUE Americans agreed and still do. They harbored a terrorist group and you are saying it was "not ethical" to go in and get rid of them? That is wrong. The (very successful) War in Iraq- You claim that the United States went in to Iraq because of "intelligence in the form of documents that suggested Iraqi intent and action to construct and store WMD". Let me put it this way- If someone walked up to your mother, put a gun to her head, and said, "Give me all of your jewellery." the gun wouldn't have to be loaded for that person to be tried for armed robbery. Right? Right. Now, Saddam Hussein said to the world, "I have Weapons of Mass Destruction and I will use them." Even if he didn't, shouldn't he still be treated the same? However, he used them on his own people, we know that. Anyway, that's not the point because, oh yeah, we DID find yellow cake and there is proof. http://www.nytimes.com...
Co-education is the best system

I read the article you sourced. It says teachers encourage girls, rather than disregarding them. The article I posted says why men are less likely to be teachers. The reason is difference in general personality between the genders. Your idea of why is speculative and wrong. Focusing on superficial images is unfortunately human nature. No separation of genders is going to change that. How do you know separation would decrease tension? Couldn't one just as easily argue that separation increases tension? Tension does mean the state of being pulled apart, after all. Your point is that segregation would end sexual tension. I simply show that it wouldn't. At no point did I say whether this was good or bad. Just that it proves your claim wrong. I would like to thank you for this debate. I feel that perhaps more could have been said, however, had you set a higher round and character limit.
Co-education is the best system

I have not given any reasons as to why males were performing less academically but just said that whatever reason that is happening for is becoming a hindrance for girls to receive attention from their professors as the boys will claim it. I to would be unfair for the girls. Your reasons as to why men are performing less are contradictory. Can you tell me why there aren't many male teachers? It is because they are doing poorly for reasons pertaining to their inability to focus on their studies which will be even stronger when girls are around. I also said that women and men mutually feel the existence of the other so both will become disoriented and overattentive to their "superficial" image. In a single-sex environment that tension becomes less. Keep in mind that I do not propose segregation in their social life as well. I only concentrate on schools, education. As for homosexuals, you admit of sexual tension, and thus prove my point.
Co-education is the best system

1. My opponent makes the argument that boys perform at lower levels than girls because of hormones. I would like to propose a more likely reason: teachers. Men account for less than 25% of teachers (1). Both males and females are of course better suited to teach their own kind, and female teacher dominance logically leads to girls performing better. 2. Your previous argument indicates that boys will be more interested in being with girls, but here your argument is that they will essentially run away because they want to save their reputation. This is a logical contradiction. 3. What about homosexuals? They will continue to feel this sexual tension, and probably even more so. It would be as if my opponent (a male, looking at his profile) were sent to an all-girl school. Solutions should be for everyone. Not for majorities, at the expense of minorities. Sources: . http://www.ehow.com...
Co-education is the best system

Co-education should not be applied due to the following reasons: 1-Many pieces of research have demonstrated that the academic performance of males has declined increasingly in the past few decades(1); they would claim the attention of teachers due to their disruptive behaviour and of course hormones accompanying their adolescent years. Girls will be neglected and forgotten as there is a wide spread belief that girls can study on their own because they are more organised and diligent not because they are smart or in need of the teacher's guidance. 2-Boys would be less encouraged to participate in art or literature subjects with female teachers and girls present; they would feel less masculine or rough as the image they believe women have of them and they need to have it. 3-Boys and girls, as we all know, begin to feel the presence of the other sex around them from an early stage especially in their teen years and thus the presence of the other and the image in front of him or her becomes the most important not the learning process. -(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Yahoo Answers is better for politics than Debate.org

YOU KEEP LYING! Yahoo Answers is a great place. It taught me how to be a man. How to debate. It taught me the lies of the liberals and the truth of the conservatives. It pretty much converted from a wimpy liberal to conservative in just weeks. I am no longer a stupid uneducated liberal that expects thing from people. When I was a liberal I had no friends on yahoo but when I became a con it seem I got alot of friends. You are the biggest liar I ever known. I can't make friends on here even if I was a liberal. Nearly everyone on this site is trollish, lying, evil, mean, or just crazy. And your one to. Your a fing freak. You are trying to bring the peple agianst me to make ym more unpopular. that is your goal. it is to make my life as bad, and misable as possible. You want my money. you want everything I have. you want my life, and my freedom. you will take all of it away. Yahoo Answers never done anything like that before!
Yahoo Answers is better for politics than Debate.org

YOU KEEP LYING AND ATTACKING ME! Your with him! You brought everyone against me in a debate. You are a liar, a cheater, and a false man. I bet you are him! Also obummer sucks! Even Bieber is better than obummer! Also don't get sarcastic and say who is obummer. Obummer is obama. Obama sucks. He is the worst president ever. I bet you are that guy with the baby avatar. I am popular on yahoo and you are trying to prevent me from being popular on here! FK U! Also I will keep you down by saying I don't like you!
Yahoo Answers is better for politics than Debate.org

What kind of stuff is yahoo teaching you? Did yahoo teach you to debate like that? Which is completely wrong and is very rude. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you. I think you need to stop acting like a child and grow up. Also maybe there are trolls on here; heck there is and one of them is you. Maybe there are others but yahoo answers has tons and tons of them. So even if this website is full of them and I doubt that. Yahoo Answers is full of them as well
Yahoo Answers is better for politics than Debate.org

YOU LIE! You are a lying liberal idiot! You need to learn to respect people you dumb idiot. You jack off to obama I bet you do! I bet you are lazy and expect everything for nothing. Also I do have other reasons like people on this site can sometimes troll and they pretend they are smart when they really aren't. You liberals are like us cons, execpt you lie to cover up your faluts. We cons will tell you what we did wrong and hide nothing. You are a traitor to america.
Yahoo Answers is better for politics than Debate.org

Wait that is the only reason why you think Yahoo Answers is better than this site? Just because you happen to find this site liberal bias? I really don't know too much about this site since it is my first day, but how could Yahoo Answers be better? Yahoo Answer is a very bad site for politics. It is nothing but bashing, trolling, and flame wars with no facts behind them. The only good section of Yahoo Answer is Martial Arts but other than that most sections is nothing but trolling and fighting. Do you have any other reasons why Yahoo Answers is better other than you're claim of liberal bias of this site?
Is Kaspersky Antivirus is going to be top-rated antivirus in 2018

Listen. Kapersky MIGHT be good for some things, but not in this situation. First, Kapersky does not have a clear path for refunding. You can do it, you just have to call customer service. But it takes REALLY long for your money to get received compared to when you buy it. Second, you CANNOT unsubscribe from them! How ridiculous is that? Third, TERRIBLE SERVICE! From what I heard, they are seriously a bunch of motherf*ckers. Fourth, it makes your computer SUPER SLOW some times. Fifth, I had this one, when it expires, it starts getting SUPER annoying! It just gives me a bunch of notifications that seriously p*ss me off. Finally, I also had this one (I'm not sure of this one, this was a couple years ago), When I scanned my PC, it only got rid of ONE threat! Those are the reasons, and thanks for reading.
Is Kaspersky Antivirus is going to be top-rated antivirus in 2018

Kaspersky Lab leading because of one of the best antivirus security software and parallel it provide exceptional technical support service with the team of experts available 24/7 for Kaspersky users. Please feel free to reach on their toll-free support number +1-855-676-2448. Most encountered Kaspersky Antivirus issues are not scanning properly, Unable to install or uninstall, unable to renew the Kaspersky internet security etc. And that why this question arises in my mind.
The Sith have a better and more realistic philosophy then the Jedi.

Okay, I agree that emotions do play a major role on peoples morals, however maybe the Jedi reject impulsive emotions that make justice unreachable otherwise. Jedi did indeed kill Sith in cold blood, but doesn't this coincide with the Sith philosophy: Through strength I gain power, through power victory" The Sith happened to be a rival power and didn't coincide with jedi philosophy, but they did do these horrible crimes. As for the Sith not accepting their flaws, this is both true and false on certain levels, on floor one of the Department of Sith Philosophy, by improving their skill and improving shows that they accept that they have flaws,but continue to improve on them. On floor two, however yes they don't accept that their flaws affect them, cause them to do things rashly and they tend to not think on the flaws at all.
The Sith have a better and more realistic philosophy then the Jedi.

I begin by thanking you for letting participate in this debate. Your points are all valid, however You only scratched the surface of the truth in this case. It is true that the Jedi use no emotion and shun it as well. This however is not totally a flaw. The ability to shut down or ignore your emotions is something taught in our world today. Our world teaches to accept others despite differences. This enables a group of people to intellectual come to terms with each other rather than use you fear and hatred of people different that you to cause destruction. The ultimate goal of the Jedi philosophy is to never let relationships, or emotions get in the way of doing what is right. In the Sith philosophy it says this "Peace is a lie...", however this within itself is not true. Peace is not a lie, but merely a hopeful idea that binds people together to have courage to do what is right.The Sith teaches self improvement, well so does the Jedi. The Jedi as a whole believe that self improvement makes you more likely to be able to handle situations better due to your dedication. The Jedi's ability to give their lives to protect other people goes on just simple altruism, it shows their beliefs that lives of a group of people are more important than an individuals. If I can take a Star Trek quotation and apply it to Star Wars: "The needs of Many outweigh the needs of few.".
zombies are a MORE real threat then people think

G'day! For a a guy with a tiny mind and a big hand, you sure reply fast. I saw this article way before. That's cute of you to just source an article from a blog of some mediocre journalist. "Now if only it kept the corpse walking around" This caught my eye because this particular sentence just tragically, and magically, nullifies the whole article to pointless scribbles of jargons and annotations. And if you were to refer back to the my first point (where you did not argued back): "there have been no known cases of human to human transmission of the subject disease", further indicating the chances of a zombie APOCALYPSE is almost as close as you, my good sir, are getting any action tonight; 0. I conclude that rabies-turned undead-humans are not a threat. And to finish off this zombie-themed debate, I believe it is unjustifiably appropriate, without any prejudice, to say to you, my good sir, who has been quite inappropriately appropriate, BOOM HEADSHOT. With lots of love, psychedelickitty.
zombies are a MORE real threat then people think

My hands are 8 and a half inches long, and five inches wide. I have a crushing grip. I would argue that "are you a dog" is a fair redubtal. Here is somthing i found that has a great mind in it. He makes good pionts. "I think that the Zombie Virus already exists (almost): Rabies. Infection is nearly 100 percent lethal, i.e. it turns you into the walking dead (for a while at least), and it causes you to change your behavior by reprogramming you to bite other people to spread the infection. Now if only it kept the corpse walking around," Jonathan D. Dinman, PhD, Professor in the Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics at the University of Maryland, told redOrbit. Essentially, the rabies virus would need to be slightly altered, or would have to evolve, in a way to keep people kicking and screaming for their next victim rather than killing them off just a few days after symptoms occur. Rabies has to incubate inside the body before showing signs of infection, which includes anxiety, confusion, hallucinations, paralysis, agitation, hyper salivation, difficulty swallowing and hydrophobia " fear of water. This incubation period can last anywhere from 10 days to a year, meaning a "zombie virus outbreak" may look a little slower and less "viral" than movies tend to portray. Read more at http://www.redorbit.com... Thanks everybody, its been fun.
zombies are a MORE real threat then people think

G'day! Sorry about your big hands. "No one actually has any proof" I do not quite understand what specific proof you are referring to. "How would you know? Are you a dog?" That is not a very appropriate and strong rebuttal. ++ In regards to the fight-or-flight response you said on your second point, I assume you are taking in account of a rabid person. The infected person would: ||experience fever, myalgia (muscle pains) and headache, which eventually progresses to brain inflammation. As soon as the virus reaches the nerves it is incurable.|| (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...) The fight-or-flight response: || To produce the fight-or-flight response, the hypothalamus activates two systems: the sympathetic nervous system and the adrenal-cortical system. The sympathetic nervous system uses nerve pathways to initiate reactions in the body, and the adrenal-cortical system uses the bloodstream. The combined effects of these two systems are the fight-or-flight response.||(http://science.howstuffworks.com...) Note: Hypothalamus which is a portion of the brain that contains a number of small nuclei with a variety of functions. One of the most important functions of the hypothalamus is to link the nervous system to the endocrine system. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Therefore a person diagnosed with rabies cannot feel adrenaline at the later stage because the nerve systems will be dysfunctional which nullifies your second point. --------------------------------------------------- I am taking this way too serious then I should have. Good luck!
zombies are a MORE real threat then people think

Thanks for replying. Finally. Sorry about my spelling, I have big hands and was using a small phone to type on. I am sure you can empathize. To start off I will point something out that is obvious. No one actually has any proof that's why dogs attack when they have rabies. How would you know? Are you a dog? Secondly, humans have adrenaline rushes. Other wise know as the flight or fight syndrome. Not the flight syndrome. It is likely that a body once effected by rabies would resort to the oldest natural instinct.