BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modern Video games have little to no sexism Change My mind

Hey. I've been a gamer for around 10 years- started with the PS2 and haven't looked back since. I play pretty much every genre imaginable, And I gotta say, Sexism is something I come across a lot. I get what you're saying when you mention how the GTA Strip Club just emulates real world events- it's unfortunate that sexism exists in the real world, But it's good you acknowledge this. However, This does not make it not sexism- prostitution is exploitative and objectifies women, Putting it in a game does not suddenly make it okay- GTA quite simply displays sexism. Small things like this, Exposing people to things like prostitution normalises it in some way; it makes it seem more acceptable, Disconnects people from the harsh reality of desperate women involved in prostitution. I also disagree with your implied notion that the prostitution portrayed in GTA is realistic- the BBC created a few interesting videos on YouTube regarding the lives of female UK University students forced into prostitution to make ends meet. One in particular struck me- a story about a student abused by a client. Making prostitution appear as it does in GTA detracts from the real life issue- however, I went off on a tangent here. I do agree with you that overt sexism, Like what is shown above has decreased in recent years- and I even take my hat off to some games, For example, The Call Of Duty franchise who are adding female characters in modern games. I don't consider the "damsel in distress" convention as serious, However, It is a part of the underlying sexism of most video games. You'd never see the princess saving Mario, Eh? As you say, This is through obvious means, But it doesn't make it not sexist. Let's take FIFA as an example, There is a very limited female gamemode available, That allows the user to play with female players, However, It does not offer nearly as many features as it's male counterpart- now- you could say that this represents the clear gap in popularity between male and female football, HOWEVER, In my opinion, A fully fledged female game option could encourage many young gamers into looking into supporting real female football. Now- something I want to tackle, Is online and multiplayer modes. Now, Sexism on these modes is obviously community driven and not something the game developer can easily solve- short of banning sexist users, However, It is important to tackle. There are plenty of articles regarding the abuse received by female gamers, And many mentions of serious harassment (! ) and sexual comments. This is not to say that male gamers don't receive abuse as well, However, The abuse hurled at female gamers is often targeted and singles them out based on gender. Thanks- I doubt I'll change your mind, But I look forward to your response. Especially regarding the multiplayer thing.
Modern Video games have little to no sexism Change My mind

I have been a part of the gaming Subculture for 15 years when my mother first bought me a ps1 (Play Station One) back in the early 2000's threw out my time I have played multiple types of games. Adventure, Movie licensed, RPG, FPS etc. Threw out my years later in the modern age of gaming. There were accusations of video games being sexist. I believe this is false. GTA is an example that comes up often. I believe GTA is just representing what is in the real world. There are prostitutes there is a Strip club. If anything it just insulates what's wrong with the real world more then just saying it's sexist. Also, Video games have proven multiple times now especially in the modern era there are multiple female characters in gaming that can take care of themselves. That also doesn't come into the damsel in distress trope. If they do it will be thrown obvious means. Example, They're outnumbered, The foe is currently too strong for them to fight and eventually might overcome. I would love for someone to debate this with me civilly and I will look forward to your reply.
Modern Video games have little to no sexism Change My mind

When it comes to multiplayer it's pretty much up to the person. A person simply doesn't wake up and say "I'm going to be sexist today. " It's pretty much there environment and what situation therein. The point I'm trying to say is that the games themselves. Should not be used as a scapegoat for sexism. For example, When dungeons and dragons were brought out to the public the media were in an uproar saying that it makes kids go insane that they turn children into devil worshipers. Which this type of practice still is done today. My friend's auntie believes that D&D short for is of course not Christian to play. As for the sexist games comment if you're talking about games like Hunie pop or the sakura spirit series there are games like that for women as well such as Dramatical Murder which is a visual novel about a guy who is discovering himself sexually which does involve imagery that is not suitable for children. So when it comes to games that treat females in that type of way there will always be one game to equalize that. As for EA, They are a bad company when it comes to games. There is a reason why they won the raspberry award twice. As for Battlefield. Some of there games take place in WW2/1 so I think they were going for historical accuracy. As for them not allowing a female option that is a bit unfair but The majority of the audience of those games are Male. Whether there sexist or not companies only care about three things when it comes to there games whether there the nicest company like Nintendo or rubbish like EA. Who is are the main audience? How well we make the product. How much money can we make? A the end of the day it's their hands on the line if they're going to get a paycheck or not. As for the review on Gamespot, This is my opinion but I don't trust game review companies they can be easily bought through the company for advertising there game on their site and they could easily give a good rating to a slightly mediocre game. While smaller indi like games don't get their fair share. As for the difficulty on Super princess peach Nintendos audience is primarily for children when was the last time you rage quit from a Mario game. Sure It may not excuse them for making it more difficult. But since it was released at 2005 I believe it progressed from it's time where young girls were only getting games like Barbie explorer on the ps1
Modern Video games have little to no sexism Change My mind

Yes- I am a Brit- aye. And nah ^^ you didnt come off as rude at all. I was unaware of the peach spinoff, But after looking into it it seems like a fairly decent remake- however, It is important to note that Nintendo was criticised by some for the difficulty of the game- a GameSpot review noted it was "way too easy for the average platformer player. ". Is this in itself not indicative of a sexist undertone? The fact that the game is the only (correct me if I am wrong) Mario game specifically marketed at females and also the only platforming Mario game played at a significantly lower difficulty than the others is in fact sexist in itself, I wouldnt have an issue with it all if there was a difficulty adjustment option, However the game assumes Female gamers to be of a lower skill level. And yes- I agree and appreciate the fact there are female role models in some games, Just as there are male. However- this does not mean that there is less sexism in modern games. Just because there are non-sexist games, Does not detract from the fact there are still sexist games out there. In reference to your comment about FIFA 16 offering a womens mode, That was my point, Lol. To elaborate on that, The womens mode offers gameplay on an incredibly limited spectrum, I could go into more detail but I'll save you most of it, In a way, Is it not worse to offer such a small spectrum of gameplay than to offer no womens gameplay at all. And, I think this gets to the crux of the problem. FIFA's womens mode is a nod to the drive against sexism, But that's all it is, A nod, Almost an insult in that it provides very little in the way of gameplay, And yet was fairly heavily marketed by EA. Many games offer things like this; for example, Let's take Call Of Duty BO3, The first in the franchise to allow for a female protagonist to be played in the campaign. This would usually be great news, However, It is undermined by the fact the protagonist is addressed as a male multiple times throughout the campaign- the community itself has some pretty serious sexist undertones. On the multiplayer topic- I think, It has to be considered as part of the game seeing how popular multiplayer is within the community. I get that insults happen, And personally I couldn't care less. However, Targeted harassment is not something that should exist in any community, And really, More needs to be done to create a comfortable environment within the community. When a female logs on to the online section of a game, They are still playing the game, And any sexism they experience is something that needs to be stopped. In a modern game, Multiplayer is almost always part of the package.
The Life at Conception Act would effectively negate the constitutional right to abortion

I had a simple argument I was going to make that Con has already responded to. I've been struggling with this for a few hours now, and I've come to the conclusion to Con is right. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that the unborn are not included as "persons" as that word is used in the 14th amendment. Congress does not have the authority to undermine or alter the Constitution merely by redefining words. The only way to change the definition of "person" to include the unborn so the unborn would be protected by the 14th amendment is with another Constitutional amendment.So I concede. Congratulations to Con for a well-argued case.In the following rounds, I'll just put "this space intentionally left blank." so we can hurry up and get to the voting.
The Life at Conception Act would effectively negate the constitutional right to abortion

I've invited philochristos to this debate. I look forward to our exchange. This debate is inspired by another currently-running debate about whether Congress should pass the Life at Conception Act. The debate can be found here: . http://www.debate.org... And the text of the bill can be found here: . https://www.congress.gov... I am intrigued by a related question not being discussed in that debate. The proponents of the bill argue that the Act would effectively undermine the rationale for Roe v Wade and other cases recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. (. http://www.prolifealliance.com...) I would like to debate whether there is any legal basis to think that this act of Congress, if validly passed and enacted, would be legally effective in overturning the judicially-recognized right to abortion under the 5th and 14th Amendments. I will argue the con position, that the Act would be legally ineffective. Pro would bear the burden of proof to show that there is a plausible legal theory under which at least five Supreme Court justices would recognize the Act as invalidating the right to abortion. Both debaters should agree not to debate the morality of abortion or the political likelihood of enactment. The philosophical definitions of life and personhood are not relevant, though discussion of the legal definitions would be expected. This is not a debate about the desirability of the Act, but its legal efficacy.
animal testing is wrong

Voters my opponent is clearly trying to get out of the burden of proof that she has established for herself. Look to her opening argument "I do not believe in testing products on animals making them suffer... IT IS WRONG IN EVERY WAY" Thus she has clearly established that she must prove animal sufferings wrong in every way. My opponent offers to you an obscure description of some random testing that she believes happens, but she never gives you background information. Was this animal already going to die? Were they farm-raised for these purposes? Was the animal dead? Thus you see her hypothetical situation does not hold weight here. Further more my opponent does not refute any one of my pieces of evidence that shows animals are not suffering thus you have 5 clear contentions to vote for Pro. My opponent provides an abstract statement that has no proof; she offers an obscure link of websites, however she clearly does not mention how any of these websites make an argument for her. Just listing websites does not warrant a vote in her favor. My opponent says that we should just exclude the testing that I have presented, but this is basically just trying to impose an unfair burden of proof. I have clearly shown that animal testing is not wrong in many cases and my opponent does not refute this. Please note her only one reference to death rates is only about one animal and is only about animals in Oregon; that does not warrant the idea that all animals are suffering. Thus in conclusion, she is trying to ignore all the cases I provide you that show animal testing is not wrong. She tries to offer up a random list of websites, I am more than capable of doing that too, but she never offers you analysis or an argument based on those websites and thus do not look to that at all. Clearly as I have shown my opponent has defined in the opening argument that she must prove all cases are wrong, however note she has admitted that my cases of testing were not suffering. Thus she has pretty much lost the round as of now and therefore you may vote a strong vote in my favor thank you.
animal testing is wrong

thank you for your responce i am not trying to prove that it is wrong in every way i am saying that testing things such as lotions,hair products,medications ect. and at this time thay place the product inside the anmial in the eye mouth ear cut the skin and put it in there making the anmials life a living hell nowe that is what i mean is wrong . http://www.newfrontier.com... http://www.flickr.com... http://www.ehow.com... http://www.quizilla.com... http://students.umf.maine.edu... you can not tell me the anmial looks happy in those pictures i am not saying that anmial testint is all wrong i under stand i have said that but i exculd the the testing such as the ones you have stated http://en.wikipedia.org... the one below has the death rate in a range it shouuld show you something you do not see. http://www.all-creatures.org...
animal testing is wrong

Thank you for the interesting topic. (Please note the video will be referenced in my 5th contention). So my opponent has assumed the burden of proof that she must prove "in every way" that testing is bad. That means that if I prove one good way you must vote Pro by default. Contention 1: Testing humans. Humans are scientifically considered animals and their hundreds of different programs that test out different tests in morally correct ways with positive benefits. The U.S. does have a set moral standard for this. Ex: "Nearly half of patients who completed 56 weeks of treatment with Orexigen Therapeutics Inc.'s experimental obesity treatment, Contrave, lost at least 10 percent of their weight in a late-stage study and the drug also appeared to help cholesterol and blood sugar levels." http://www.foxnews.com... Thus we see that experimental testing did not make them suffer thus denying my opponents point and also that a positive was achieved in the end as people actually lost weight in this "experimental" treatment. Hence its clear to see that their are benefits and remember as my opponent as stated she will prove "wrong in every way". Contention 2: An owner can test products on their cat. If I am a cat owner and I want to see which food brand my cat loves the most I can feed him two different types and see which one I get the happiest reaction from. Thus I am doing a positive for my cat in a way that is making it happy. Hence this type of testing is also justified. Contention 3: Doggy-day care. If I send my dog to two day-care programs and I see which one makes it the happiest I am doing a test by testing the day care on it, and it is not suffering. Contention 4: Animals except humans do not have feelings. Feelings-Feelings is a United Artists Records album by easy listening duo Ferrante & Teicher. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feelings_(Ferrante_&_Teicher_album) I have never heard of a dog/cat/sheep/goat etc. owning such an album as this and thus animals do not have feelings too. Contention 5: Animals testing products do not suffer. Look at the video in the top corner of the screen. http://www.youtube.com... The gerbil is clearly in a box and having a light saber tested with him and you clearly see that he is not suffering. Thus products can be used in a way that does not make them suffer, instead it even looks like the gerbil is having fun. Thus it is clear to see that my opponent can not prove that animal testing is "wrong in every way" Thus by default a strong vote for Pro is advised. Thank you.
best method to prevent the racial and cultural extinction of the white ethnic groups

Thanks, Pro, for the debate. Since my opponent has not responded in the last round, I'd like to extend all of my arguments from the previous round. In conclusion, I'd like to wrap up this debate by pointing out a few things. Pro's proposed solutions to prevent the cultural extinction of whites is to eliminate Christianity and feminism. Throughout this debate I have explained why doing neither would affect the population. For one thing, Christians are opposed to contraception meaning they're more likely to get pregnant (thereby CONTRIBUTING to the population; not eliminating it). For another, many feminists are serious about women having the option to stay at home and raise a family meaning feminism is not directly responsible for birth rates being reduced. In fact, I have explained throughout the debate all of the fiscal, social and other reasons why the population of many societies is decreasing. Again, Christianity and feminism have nothing to do with it therefore Pro's proposed solutions have been negated, and you should vote CON. I have also proven that whites in particular are not going to be eliminated by the evidence; all Pro has done is prove that non-whites will become the majority in several countries. While I don't deny that reality, I don't see how that translates to the extinction of the white race as a whole. As I've said in a previous round of the debate ----> I find that the resolution does not call for me to provide a better solution and in fact just calls for me to disprove Pro's theory which I have done... If I was forced to come up with a way to ensure that white people are not completely wiped off the face of the earth (which is silly), I propose that a more effective way to ensure that - well, much better than Pro's silly suggestions - is simply to bar (outlaw?) other races from procreating, or encourage white people to mate through fear. Regarding white culture, there are plenty of cultures who have found ways to preserve their identity and assimilate despite moving and becoming a part of a new culture Just because some ethnic groups merge in no way ensures or mandates that a culture will be lost. Again, it's silly to think that one could force other races not to have children; however, at least that would directly affect the population in a way that Pro wants. His proposals would not yield any results. So again, please extend all of my arguments and vote CON. Thank you.
best method to prevent the racial and cultural extinction of the white ethnic groups

the purpose of this debate is to discuss the best nonviolent methods to prevent the ethnic and cultural extinctions of the white ethnic groups of the world My order of priorities would be 1) promotion of healthy religions like Paganism. Christianity is too universalist, and can be used as a tool to support liberal policies like open borders and socialism. On the other hand, paganism is more rooted in the natural essence of the every ethnic group, it is not an alien belief that was forced onto us unlike Christianity 2) rejection of feminism: what now we call feminism is no other thing that extreme communism. It is not about making women proud to be women, it is about turning women into men. Women are thought that being "women" is a social construct, and that they shall behave like men. This silly concept ignores obvious natural differences, like hormone levels, womb, reproductive organs, breasts, muscular mass, that makes women unfit for some masculine roles just like men are unfit for many femenine roles. You will find very few women if any at all working as construction workers, just like the profession of teacher is overwhelming feminine (there are nearly three times as many female as male teachers. The classic example is how the greatest joy that a woman could feel, that is, being mother, is rejected, and anti-natural aberrations like abortion are supported. The result has been a sharp fall of the birth rates for white children. Across, Europe, there is an average of only one child per women. america is around 1.8 for white women. No population can sustain itself with birth rates below 2.1, that is replacement level IMO, once Christianity and feminism are rejected by the bulk of our people, our birthrates will go back to normal and our particular civilization will be saved
there should not be a death penelty

It's very clear, given what my opponent said above, that she has conceded her case that there should not be a death penalty. If it wasn't the intention of my opponent to concede when she said what she said above, then it must be noted that, as it now stands, my opponent has lost this debate anyways. Why? Because my opponent has not refuted my argument which contends that the death penalty is sometimes necessary in order to bring forth justice, and that some crimes are so evil that only execution is the appropriate punishment.I would also like to respond to something which my opponent said. My opponent said, and I quote, "maybe some murderers thought "if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers." I can't really see how some murderers would think that they could murder murderers because the government kills murderers. It would be nice if you could elaborate on this and give us some reasons as to why you think this is the case. Moreover, I also can't see how this has anything to do with the topic of this debate, let alone how it shows that there should not be a death penalty.My opponent has not been able to defend her claim that there should not be a death penalty. In fact, my opponent herself agreed that the death penalty should in some cases be considered. The resolution remains negated.
"Culture of fear isn't the best way to ensure implicit obedience "

Culture of fear and obedience Leading member of the Nazi Party explains how people can be made fearful and to support a war they otherwise would oppose: This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works in every country. Although huge empires were made by this concept, this is not the best way to get complete control on people. It is easy to be implemented, has a rapid impact, contagious, learned not earned, however it annihilates self-confidence, lead to serious life-threatening feeling , sense of isolation, boosts ignorance ,and makes automatic behaviour living standard. As a matter of fact, the dependable regime more prone to be collapsed and be short lived.