BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
third wave feminists have no point

I seriously doubt that is true, and I am gonna prove it isn't. The first country in the world to get their first female president was Iceland, V"gdis Finnbogad"ttir was elected president in 1980 to 1996. (source: http://english.forseti.is...) Denmark got their first female president in 2011, Helle Thorning Schmidt and with her were 70 women out of 179 members of the danish parliament (source: http://www.politiko.dk...) That means the danish parliament is 40% women, DOUBLE compared to the US congress and senate. The British parliament is 30% women, Sweden a shocking 44.6%, Belgium 39.3%, EU parliament is 35.2% women. (source: http://www.ft.dk...) US can't compare to these numbers, they are HALF most of them, and that is a very clear sign why feminism is MOST needed in America. The american women are not uninterested in these kind of jobs, you are simply later in the process as a country to accept women in these jobs. This can have something to do with the fact that America was relatively late to give their women the right to vote compared to other countries. The 19th amendment was passed in 1920, Denmark allowed women to vote in 1915, Norway 1913, Finland 1906 (my source is an article with a map of europe and as you swipe through the countries it will list the year women got the right to vote: http://nyhederne.tv2.dk... You obviously don't understand the wage gap. The reason why companies hire men is not because they make more as individuals, but as a gender. Combine all the wages by men and all the wages by women they, as a gender, get 80% less. It's illegal to discriminate, however it's done daily. I'm out of characters!
third wave feminists have no point

.. Rebuttal to 1: There is no reason that there aren't as many women in political jobs other than the fact that on average, woman don't want to go into that field. Sure, there ARE many women who are willing, but these are a minority. The truth of the matter is, women on average stay away from demanding jobs. It's unfair to say that women don't have many jobs in leadership positions because of a sexist society, when, in actuality, it's just because women on average avoid jobs in fields like that. Same goes for STEM fields, women are just generally less likely to go into there. Rebuttal to 2: The infamous "Wage Gap. " It's been disproved at least a million times, but seems to still pop up every now and then. Well, I'll make my points for why it's illogical then link some links. 1. If the wage gap existed, why would companies even hire men? If they really payed women 20% less for the same work, they could save literally 20% of expenses by only hiring women. 2. It's federally illegal to discriminate based on gender, race, etc. If the wage gap was as prevalent as you describe, companies would be facing WAY more lawsuits than they do. 3. The 80 cents for a dollar uses horrible statistics in order to make a claim. Instead of calculating wages, they calculated earnings. Now let me explain the difference: Wage is how much one earns per hour, month, year, etc. Earning is how much money one makes in their lifetime. It's true that men EARN 20% more on average, but that is because on average, men retire later and work longer hours. . http://www.thedailybeast.com... . http://www.cbsnews.com... In fact, women have a better chance than men at getting paid MORE than the opposite sex because companies need to fill up quotas in order to achieve tax breaks.
third wave feminists have no point

It is very true that some of those that call themselves feminists have taken it too far. However, saying feminism isn't necessary anymore is far from true. Even though we've come a long we, we are not finished. 1. Women have their rights, there is nothing more to do there. However, consider the fact that there are only 20 women out of a 100 members in the senate. (source: http://www.senate.gov... ) and out of 435 members in congress there are just over 100 women (source: http://members-of-congress.insidegov.com...) Judging from that there are close to 50 per cent of females and males in most societies, shouldn't it be more equal in the places where the laws are made? furthermore, there has never been a female US president, ever. Out of 45 male presidents (15 since women were granted the right to vote) there has not been a single female? In my opinion this is a clear sign that we have not won over sexism yet, however this is not men's fault alone - women don't vote for women, we are doing is to ourselves because we don't believe in ourselves. 2. 5. Women's earnings are 80 per cent compared to men's, I have a very reliable source here: http://www.bls.gov...... It is very true that women earn 4/5 of what men do. Even though I as a woman have the right to do anything a man would like, looking at society there is an unbalance between the sexes. To fix that is the next goal in the feminist movement.
Wind Farms should not be removed from Australia

Okay let me set the record straight. First of all solar panels are not government based, they are created and installed by private companies. If it was government based then the debt would effect the cost and the mining and etc. but because it is a privately based this won't effect it too much. As you also said that wind turbines produce more energy than solar panels. That is true however it is a large-scale project so therefore it will provide more energy but when I'm talking about solar panels I mean lots of small-scale projects that will provide energy for a street or a neighbourhood. Also wind turbines need wind to generate electricity (hence the 'wind' part of the name ((jokes)) ) so it might not work on a clear not windy day. On that note I will be closing the debate. I would like to thank SquidKing for debating and I would like to thank you all for bothering to read this debate so please like this debate and I look forward to debating here on DDO. =) PS: I actually do like wind farms and turbines. All you read is not what I think (except the solar panels part they are great!) Again please do not use as an educational source because we probably have made tonnes of mistakes in our research. Thanks for reading and goodbye!
Wind Farms should not be removed from Australia

I never said that Australia should just suddenly spend thousands of dollars and build wind turbines, maybe wait until they pay off most of their debt. About what you said how we should use solar panels. Solar panels themselves cost thousands of dollars so by what you said that Australia is in debt means that we can't get solar panels either. You don't get solar panels growing on tree's which means they have to be made. To manufacture solar panels you have to mine the quartz sand for silicon and mine metal ore for the thin film cells. After that you have to treat them and then make them into solar cells. This causes lots of pollution and uses lots of energy which produces greenhouse gasses and even more pollution. Aside from pollution solar panels need to have the Sun shining upon them for them to actually work. Wind turbine produce more energy than solar panels as well as wind turbines provide enough energy for 2000 homes. I'm not trying to say that solar panes are bad, I'm trying to say that they're ot better than wind turbines. Sources: http://solarelectricityhandbook.com... , http://www.lowtechmagazine.com...
Wind Farms should not be removed from Australia

"Fossil fuels are already used commonly so using it to make a better environment for the future would be better than sticking with fossil fuels,"- SquidKing Do wind turbines reduce the amount of carbon-dioxide in our atmosphere? Of course not. If you use the oil or other fossil fuels to make something it still will effect the environment. Having a massive tall structure made out of plastic stuck into the ground you will still effect the environment.I would also like to point out that thousands of dollars cannot be spent. We have billions of dollars at debt and money doesn't grow on trees so we cannot just spend "thousands of dollars". Also where did I say "sticking with fossil fuels". I never did ! In fact I propose a better plan which leads me to my argument. Instead of using wind turbines as a source of energy we can further harness our great Australian sun. Solar panels are made out of silicon, a much more environmentally friendly material. If we put a solar panels on most houses we would provide a lot more power and the extra power it generates can be sent back to the grid.
Wind Farms should not be removed from Australia

Before I start my second argument I would like to point out that plastic is being made at this very moment, and not for wind turbines. Now my argument. Wind farms across Australia can provide energy for 1.3 million homes which would be about 5 million people. Currently there are only 24 million people in Australia. More than 1/5 of the population. About what you said about oil used in making wind turbines, fossil fuels are already used commonly so using it to make a better environment for the future would be better than sticking with fossil fuels. Also the thousands of dollars that would be spent, the government should use money to make a better future for Australia. Those thousands of dollars should be spent. Wind turbines are a good use for the thousands of dollars you spoke about. Eventually there may be enough wind turbines that you don't need to spend more on them.
Wind Farms should not be removed from Australia

Hello ladies and gentlemen. The topic of our debate is wind farms/turbines should not be removed from Australia. Today I will be the con (or negative). Before I state my argument I need to point out some flaws in my opposition's case. SquidKing said that "Wind Turbines produce renewable energy that doesn't use coal or any other non-renewable resource..." Although that wind turbines do not use any fossil fuels to create energy it actually is made out of a fossil fuel. Wind turbines are made out of of carbon-fibre reinforced plastics. Plastics. Plastic is made out of oil which is a fast depleting resource in our world. Therefore in investing in wind turbines we will contribute to the loss of oil. My argument is that wind turbines are useless to the main urban population (people who live in cities live in cities). To effectively use a wind turbine one must be in a rural area. There you will have land and space but if the main populace live in cities they would have to run powerlines all the from there to a city which would cost thousands of dollars.
Funniest Quotes

"HAHAHAH MAI ROFLCOPTER IT GOEZ SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI {HAHAHAH. My ROFL-Copter. It goes SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI" ~ Chief (Arby 'n' The Chief) "MAI ROFLKNIEF GOEZ SLIEC SLIEC SLIEC SLIEC SLIEC LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL {My ROFL-Knife goes slice slice slice slice slice}" ~ Chief (Same as Above) "[in the parking garage] i can haz car??/ ROFL. (I can has car? Rofl.) [gets in the car] lets go car. [Loveheart enters the garage shooting randomly] holy fuk aaaaaaa. go uheep of sht! [Loveheart gives chase but Chief is driving off] h00ray! niec car asshoel. MIEN NOW LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! (Hooray, nice car asshle! Mine now! lololololololol)" ~ Chief (Same as Above)
Funniest Quotes

OK "Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings." ~ Unknown 'The average woman would rather have beauty than brains, because the average man can see better than he can think." ~ Unknown "I've swallowed 18 condoms full of truth and I'm headed across the border!" ~Stephen Colbert (Pronounced STEVEN COLE-BEAR for those of you who don't know) Your move
Funniest Quotes

Thanks for Accepting. "You know, somebody actually complimented me on my driving today. They left a little note on the windscreen, it said 'Parking Fine'." -unknown "If I'm not back in five minutes. Just wait longer." -Ace Ventura "Yeah I called her up, she gave me a bunch of crap about me not listening to her, or something, I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention." -Harry off of Dumb and Dumber.
Funniest Quotes

Ok Thank you for posting this debate, I will post my 3 quotes "Capitalism: is it helping your uncle Jack off a horse, or helping your uncle jack off a horse." ~ Unknown "Games with ragdoll death animations just make it look even more ridiculous. One moment an enemy is strafing and firing at full speed, the next his entire body just goes limp like Mr. Scotty teleported his skeleton out of his body or something." ~ Ben "Yahtzee" Crowshaw "Whats the difference between roast beef and pea soup? Everyone can roast beef, but no one can pee soup." ~ Unknown Your move.
Funniest Quotes

Alright this is simple. We will post Three funny quotes per round, doesn't matter if you know who they are from or not, and in the fifth round you will be allowed to post five quotes. The funniest quotes shall win. I will start. "I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades...or a game of fake heart attack." -Demetri Martin "The secret of Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -Albert Einstein "I remember the time I was kidnapped and they sent a piece of my finger to my father. He said he wanted more proof." -Rodney Dangerfield Good luck to whoever shall accept my challenge. I look forward to having some good laughs
Funniest Quotes

Ok thank you for hosting a debate for me. To start off I'll do a good ol' fashioned, You might be a redneck. If you think that billboard that says, "SAY NO TO CRACK" reminds you to pull up your jeans, you may be a redneck. " ~ Jeff Foxworthy "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. ' And God granted it. " ~ Voltaire " You know you're getting fat when you can pinch an inch on your forehead. " ~ John Mendoza "If you die in an elevator, be sure to push the Up button. " ~ Sam Levenson "It's funny the way most people love the dead. Once you're dead, you're made for life. "
Funniest Quotes

You may post Five quotes this round. "Why do you put a baby in the blender feet first? So you can see the expression on its face." -Unknown "Suicide Hotline, Please Hold." -Unknown "You guys lineup alphabetically by height." -Bill Peterson "Procrastinate now, don't put it off." -Unknown "Online debating is like the special olympics. Even if you win you are still a retard." -Addison(Friend of mine) Good luck and thanks for accepting.
Funniest Quotes

"When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." ~ Clint Eastwood (Dirty Harry, 1971) "What do you call 500 lawyers lying on the bottom of the Ocean? A good start... " ~ Danny DeVito (The War of Roses, 1989) "No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend." ~ Grouchu Marx (Comedian)
All organized religions have one thing in common that destroys them

I am limiting this debate to Biblical Prophets and Popes. Answer to 1st, 3rd, 4th rebuttal: There is a difference between GTMTTY being inspired by God. God did not tell the prophets/writers what to write and say. What he does instead is choose the prophet to deliver his message, inspire them, and they deliver the message in their own style. Answer to 2nd rebuttal: Catholic Church determined whether or not a manuscript or prophet was inspired by God in many ways. They use historical evidence, archeological evidence, eye witness accounts, and the text itself to determine. Also, the Catholic Church looks how the manuscripts relate to each other. If you take a look at the Bible, there are no conflicting between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Answer to 3rd rebuttal: My opponent has fallen into the common trap of not reading the Bible contextually. He has taken exerts from the Bible without looking at the overall meaning. Some parts of the Bible are stories made up. Like Jonah and Noah did not exist, also the creation story in Genesis is false. In order to truly understand the Bible, one must read in a contextual sense, because every book is in the Bible for a reason. In reality, people can skew the Bible to justify pretty much anything. Answer to 5th: God's delivery method has everything to do with free will. What God has done is given us a Book that tells us how to live a happy life. Now it up to us personally to choose whether or not to follow it. God wants us to love Him, and He knows that He cannot have that unless we make that choice ourselves to love Him. Answer to 6th: When the Bible says "Thus says the Lord" the Lord is actually talking that is only when it happens. By the way, I have read the Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon. Good Luck to my opponent.
All organized religions have one thing in common that destroys them

This debate is about all of the worlds major religions. It is actually about the ones that have a real hard-core decree of right, wrong and what is required of mankind in order to be right in the eyes of that religion's God and/or to achieve eternal life and/or avoid damnation. It is not at all about philosophical ideas like Buddhism that are more about advice for living in this life but do not offer consequences for the next one. I am going to argue for the idea that none of the following prophets can be trusted: 1. Moses 2. Any old testament prophet or writer of the books in the Bible. 3. Any new testament disciple or writer (especially Paul) of the NT books 4. Jesus 5. Muhammed 6. Joseph Smith 7. Brigham Young 8. Jim Jones 9. Popes 10. Just pick any leader of any organized religions past or present that has claims to speak for God. I am going to argue that they ALL have one seriously disturbing thing in common. I don't want to say what that is until someone accepts. All I ask is that you too believe in some organized religious and you too claim to have faith and you believe you are living the right life as best you can in God's eyes.
FNC (Fox News) showed Obama's address to Congress about his supposed health care plan

Allow me to correct myself, the word supposed was used zero times in the quote the way in which my opponent defined it (imagined). Secondly, he stated that the reforms he was PROPOSING would not apply to illegal immigrants. Just because he proposed certain aspects of the health care bill does not give him ownership of the health care bill. Therefore Fox News did not show Obama's address to Congress that was supposed to be regarding his health care plan.
FNC (Fox News) showed Obama's address to Congress about his supposed health care plan

My opponent claims that I did not mention supposed in my opening argument. I would like for my opponent to look again: "I have heard many uninformed liberals claim that FNC [1] did not show Obama's address to Congress that was SUPPOSED to be regarding his health care plan. This is a blatant lie. " See it in capital letters? It was used once, not zero, times. In the video, Obama claims that "the reforms [he's] proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. " Clearly he has claimed this as a fact about his supposed plan. My opponent has given no reason to believe that FNC did not show Obama's address about his supposed health care plan. He misread my argument and completely missed the work "supposed. " This should be obvious.
FNC (Fox News) showed Obama's address to Congress about his supposed health care plan

Quote from my opponent's R1 opening argument: "I have heard many uninformed liberals claim that FNC [1] did not show Obama's address to Congress that was supposed to be regarding his health care plan. This is a blatant lie." Within the opening argument the word 'supposed' was used exactly zero times, and once in the title. He then provided a video of Barack Obama's Address to Congress as proof of this despite the fact that that he doesn't have one. So as it stands all the evidence he has that FNC did cover Barack Obama's Adress to Congress on his health care plan is a definition for the word supposed, making his R2 argument pretty weak. Mongoose presented the video of Barack Obama's address to Congress under the pretenses that it was covering his health care plan (see quoteabove), not his SUPPOSED health care plan. Thank You.
FNC (Fox News) showed Obama's address to Congress about his supposed health care plan

My esteemed opponent seems to have negelcted the word "supposed" in the resolution. Obama claims to have a health care plan that he desribed during the address. This fulfilled the resolution. supposed: imagined [1] As my opponent has pointed out, there was no "Obama's health care plan," but this was accounted for. My opponent simply added to this. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
FNC (Fox News) showed Obama's address to Congress about his supposed health care plan

Seeing as my opponent mongosse has posted a debate that is by most standards would appear to be unwinnable, so therefore this debate will have to fall victim to semantics. Fox News did not show Obama's address to Congress about HIS health care plan because Barack Obama does not have a health care plan. There are two health care plans in the legislature to this date. HR3200 which is America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which is consideration in the House of Representatives[1]. There other is one in the Senate which has been recently passed by the Senate Finance Committee[2]. Seeing as Barack Obama did write any of these bills they are not respectfully HIS and therefore FNC (Fox News) did not show Obama's address to Congress about HIS supposed health care plan. Thank You. [1] http://www.opencongress.org... [2] http://news.yahoo.com...
FNC (Fox News) showed Obama's address to Congress about his supposed health care plan

I have heard many uninformed liberals claim that FNC [1] did not show Obama's address to Congress that was supposed to be regarding his health care plan. This is a blatant lie. I would like anybody who believes that FNC didn't cover it to accept this debate and show that they didn't. http://www.youtube.com... [1] http://www.foxnews.com...
Evidence for god

There are many flaws to this line of "thinking." 1) t-man is assuming that infinates can't exist. If that is the case, I ask him, what is the largest integer? Can you not take one step left ad infinitum? can you not progress 1 second forward ad infinitum? These are examples of inifinities that are real, so simply pointing it out doesnt do crap. 2) t-man says that the universe must have a beginning, but offers no logic for that. Why does it have to have a beginning? Why "must" the universe have a beginning, but not god? 3) t-man says that the universe must therefore have a creator. This is also bogus since the universe doesnt have to have a "creator" which implies intent, but merely a causation of accident of other, non-god, events. Having a start does not mean the same as having a creator. Every aspect of this argument fails.
Evidence for god

Here is my evidence: The Universe exists.There has to be a beginning to the Universe. It would illogical for there to be an event before an event before an event before an event before an event before Ad infinitum. It is also imposable for it to be self-creating. Something that doesn't exist can't create itself. The universe's existence isn't self-evident. If it is, what makes it that way? The only remaining explanation is that something created the universe. Therefore there is a creator.
Evidence for god

1) I did not say that 1 second cannot continue ad infinite because infinities don't exist. That would be circular logic. It is imposable because no matter how much time has past there still would be more to go before infinity is reached. Also, I said, "There may be infinite POSSIBLE integers. " There are infinite possibilities, but there are no infinities in reality.2) You have been unable to give any valid examples of infinities. It is, therefore, most likely that they don't exist.3) If something caused the universe to exist, that thing created the Universe. Therefore it is the Universe's creator. My arguments stand.