BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women wrestling are better than men stitching

Now, moving on:C1: Women Wrestling is Considered more Entertaining than Men SewingMy opponent claims that women wrestling would be "lame to watch" because they are "done" with physical activities. This is absolutely untrue. My opponent brings up a faulty claim without evidence. Growing mature wouldn't cause women to lose interest in physical activies. This is why professional female soccer players, tennis players, and wrestlers exist (these are only couple of examples). Women still have interest in sports. Women, like men, enjoy physical activities. Additionally, Women Wrestling is actually quite popular. A YouTube video called, "Top 10 Female Wrestlers," currently has over 17 million views and 23,000 likes! [1] Many people actually enjoy spectating female wrestling because it is fun and exciting. On the other hand, sewing has no intense rivalries and matches. Watching someone sew is clearly not exciting. [2]C2: Women Wrestling might actually Support Women There are approximately 237,868 victims of sexual assaults, each year. [3] Female wrestling might actually decrease the amount of sexual assaults. If women were to learn wrestling, they would be capable of defending themselves from rapists. I also feel that the whole "men are stronger than women" thing is quite unfair. Once women start wrestling, they would be just as physically strong as men. Refutations:1. ) Men Stitching provides more resources than women wrestlingThis is not true. Yes, men might earn a few dollars from stitching and selling their products. Don't forget that professional female wrestler would earn more money. Tickets to the wrestling stadium allow women wrestlers to earn a lot of money (due to the fact that there are a lot of spectators in wrestling). 2. ) Men would get a break (they need one! )I completely argee. But, I'd like to ask my opponent one question: Why sewing? Men would rather watch football or baseball than sewing. Men have several hobbies [4]. .. but why stitching?3. ) Women wrestlers would not be very entertainingMy opponent contradicts herself. During her second paragraph, she clearly mentions, "I understand how watching women wrestle would be more entertaining. .. " Thus, this argument is invalid.4. ) Women's bodies are not fit for the sport of wrestlingNot really. Professional Women Wrestling actually exists. The wrestlers there seem to have no problem. .. [1] [2] [3] . https://www.rainn.org...[4] . http://www.artofmanliness.com...Not the best arguments, but ehhh. .. Good enough. ..
Women wrestling are better than men stitching

It's perfectly forgiven, Ledroptha (LDP) DebATeR of DDO! Acceptance is always the least important, in my opinion. But alas, this debate is only three rounds, so I suppose we should be making the most of each one... Now. On with the arguing. I believe men stitching would be a better change than women wrestling. I understand how watching women wrestle would be more entertaining, but that is not the point here! The point is that men stitching would help and advance us all with a better influence in a certain perspective. Men stitching provides more resources than women wrestlingWhatever is used for stitching does not cost a lot of money. The end product of stitching: beautiful artworks that can be sold for money (embroideries, pictures, etc.) and/or used for sales to produce money and income. Women wrestling only provides entertainment which is expensive to watch/play. Men stitching provides money, clothes (scarves, gloves, hats, coats, etc.), and is good for men. Men would get a break (they need one!)Males are considered men right after aboy has finished adolescence.If you've ever had a younger--or even older--brother, close friend or husband,you know how interestingly hyper they can get. They are constantly diong one of these things: working, playing, or competing!If my opponnent is a man, (correct me if I'm wrong because it's a blatant assumption),Pro canmost likely agree that mencan geta bit out of handwhen they are notdoing something competely constructive.Imagine men going intocareers such as craft salesmen andfine arts participators.While they would still get theirtime forbeing rowdy, they would have somecalm-you-downtimes as part of their schedule so that the women wouldn't get so annoyed with them and they'd feel assisted in their often over-looked roles like sewing. Women wrestlers would not be very entertainingOnce most females get to that stagein life where they are considered women instead of just girls, (around the age of25),they are done with physical activities/sports whatsoever, thus wrestling would be boring and probably quite lame to watch! Women's bodies are not fit for the sport of wrestlingSpeaking of that transition from girl-hoodadolescence tofull-adult women, girls mature more and more significantly than boys over time. We do not need to think about how wrestling would be quite uncomfortableand unpleasant for the bodies ofwomen. Boys are the perfect for stitching. Their hand-eye coordination would be improved (that's self explanatory), and they would learn to it still rather than rough house. Men are factually not known to be gentle-men, but that could change within the course of all men getting into the hobby of crafts making!
Liberals are no less ableist than conservatives,

"My first argument will use the zika scare. Democrats far and wide were calling for access to abortion out of fear of conditions such as microcephaly. Viewing any of disabled individuals as easy candidates for death is a basic example of, "Ableism characterizes persons as inferior to the non-disabled." This also plays into the high abortion rates for people with down syndrome, not to mention doctors in the US are required to suggest abortion and in the UK, abortion is allowed to birth for people with downs and other conditions." The main problem with Pro's argument is that even though he is saying that Democrats are ableist. The proposition is Liberals are no less ableist as conservatives. Thus he hasn't prove his proposition what so ever. My argument is that the use of abortion is not ableism if the fetus is not considered alive and thus is not a human. A fetus can not live outside the womb in under 22 weeks. If the doctors caught that the baby through Screening test or Diagnostic test and perform an abortion than the baby is technically not a human, and thus the Ableism for abortion is false if they're not human or alive. http://www.webmd.com... https://www.babycenter.com...
Liberals are no less ableist than conservatives,

Your definition, Ableism is discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities. Ableism characterizes persons as inferior to the non-disabled. My first argument will use the zika scare. Democrats far and wide were calling for access to abortion out of fear of conditions such as microcephaly. Viewing any of disabled individuals as easy candidates for death is a basic example of, "Ableism characterizes persons as inferior to the non-disabled." This also plays into the high abortion rates for people with down syndrome, not to mention doctors in the US are required to suggest abortion and in the UK, abortion is allowed to birth for people with downs and other conditions.
Liberals are no less ableist than conservatives,

I won't get into whether an unborn child is human/alive or not, and luckily it is unnecessary to anyway. Aborting specifically because a fetus will be disabled is out of the idea that the life will be worse, or is less important than that of a non disabled unborn. That clearly crosses, " Ableism characterizes persons as inferior to the non-disabled", These sort of abortions, particularly seeing as many countries including the UK allow abortion for disabled unborn past the date that non disabled unborn can be aborted, boarder on eugenics. Considering to the extent Iceland has managed this,The law in Iceland permits abortion after 16 weeks if the fetus has a deformity and has a near 100% termination rate, and how close most other developed countries are getting, disabled people everywhere fear this attitude- many of us would not be alive if more people bought into it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A new argument to be added would be common liberal opposition to school reform including school choice. School choice allows individuals to choose to go to one of many schools, not being held back by area. This includes a variety of charter schools, private schools, and public schools. The common liberal opposition to school choice causes disabled students who are not being given enough support, or learn differently than the way a public school can teach to be boxed into that situation and not improve. That includes if a school has a history of not really teaching special ed students, or isn't giving appropriate accommodation (And won't, this actually happens a lot, it's illegal but schools don't care and families don't have proof.) School choice allows both non-disabled and disabled to get the best education that will work for them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And here will be my last argument, liberal insults and labels. Referring to the ideas of: Homophobia Transphobia Islamophobia negrophobia A phobia is a mental illness defined as an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. These types of labels are an insult to anyone who truly deals with a disabling phobia by turning it into a simple insult to use toward those they deem hateful.
Spider Crabs can totally own Lobsters

To Own: Of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself. Spider Crab: Any of various crabs of the family Majidae, having long, slender legs and a comparatively small, triangular body. Lobster: any of various large, edible, marine, usually dull-green, stalk-eyed decapod crustaceans of the family Homaridae, esp. ============= A spider crab is a creature, creatures can not have other creatures in their possession. Therefore a spider crab can not own a lobster. THE RESOLUTION IS NEGATED. Sources: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Sources: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Sources: . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Spider Crabs can totally own Lobsters

Slow and study only wins the race in fairy tales. Watch the video. http://www.youtube.com... The fastest won. Now, you said that Spider Crabs can ...TOTALLY... own Lobsters. Blood is a part of a lobster, when a lobster is killed the blood is released from its body. Since the crab can not obtain all of the blood it can not completely own the lobster. No more needs to be said seeing that I have already negated your resolution. Audience, my opponent has failed to have reliable sources, was not to great on his grammar, and his argument was weak. Who had better conduct is up to you, though I think it was also me. Vote con. Thank you. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Spider Crabs can totally own Lobsters

Ah, spider crabs could be any species. Those crabs can attack in swarms as well. If a bear does kill a human, and keeps the body, perhaps eating it to the bone, they technically do own that human. Although that is a rare instance, it is possible and can happen with crabs and lobsters. Now yes, the spider crab is rather slow, but slow and steady wins the race, if you have heard this tale. Again, the "lobsters" in that video were indeed crayfish. Your turn.
Spider Crabs can totally own Lobsters

You said Spider crabs, not Japanese spider crabs. Though I will make an argument on this. Yes lobsters usually fight with themselves, but if they are in danger they will fight with anything. Lobsters are also much faster than Spider crabs, they can jet away from danger if they can not fight. If you watch the video above, you will see that even injured the lobster jets away really fast. Spider crabs (having such long legs) are much slower than lobster. Also, remember that defeating something is much different than owning something. Just becuase bears are bigger than humans does not make them our owners. Even if they do kill ad eat us, we are not there's. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). Youtube video
Spider Crabs can totally own Lobsters

I may be wrong about all spider crabs, but as for the Japanese Spider crab, well, those lobsters are screwed. I would also like to point out that yes lobsters can fight, but usually with each other, and the video is of two crayfish, not lobsters. On a trip to Tampa to see family for Thanksgiving, I took a trip to the Florida Aquarium. I visited the spider crab exhibit and noticed that all of the crabs were larger in size, one bigger than my young cousin. It states here that the Japanese Spider crab is the largest arthropod is the Spider Crab, with the American Lobster in close second. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, crustaceans are known to attack in swarms, so I am quite sure that a swarm of spider crabs can defeat a lobster. As for the statement, "What can a lobster do for a spider crab?", it doesn't have to mean that the lobster has to do anything. The spider crabs can simply have dominance in size and numbers, and eat the inside of the lobster
Spider Crabs can totally own Lobsters

Thank you for posting. In the sea creature world, animals dont keep other animals in their possession to do any work for them. What can a lobster do for a spider crab? You claim that lobsters are smaller than spider crabs, that statement is wrong. There are hundreds of types of lobsters, they once found a lobster to be 24 Pounds. There are also many types of spider crabs some of them can be as small as 4 inches. Take a look at these pictures. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... The largest spider crabs do have longer legs but their bodies are in fact very small. A lobster can also hide under ground and get away from the crab. Lobsters can do many things to get away from crabs, but they can also fight View the video http://www.youtube.com... Sources: (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://en.wikipedia.org... (3.) You
Spider Crabs can totally own Lobsters

I see where you are coming from, but spider crabs are rather larger creatures, as compared to the lobster. Due this superiority, a spider crab could, I suppose I could say, enslave said lobster, and by this I mean to have dominance over the smaller creature. As with many creatures in various ecosystems, the larger often can spare the smaller creature and use said creature to do the dirty work. Since the lobster is rather small, and the spider crab being rather large, it could have dominance over the lobster.
'Is there a sound foundation for atheistic morality?'

I'll have to do a bit more research on Utilitarianism to determine how to go about why we should concern ourselves about others. But for now, I think the answer's simply "because it would be moral", but then it would become circular, as Con points out. There might not be a clear cut moral guideline. I say this all the time "Every argument has flaws", but I fail to live by my own rule. I'm going to concede the debate, as I'm not sure if I'll be able to fully connect the dots I'd need. Good game.
'Is there a sound foundation for atheistic morality?'

Thank you for raising these questions. I'll answer them as I can.Cross Examination:"I would argue that utilitarianism is actually just a formalised framework for the expression of the subjective emotivism which I previously argued was all that atheistic morality could be." It is true that what makes people happy can be different from person to person, but this doesn't mean they aren't happy when they get what they like."And, as stated earlier most atheists sustain a belief in determinism and that morality is a random byproduct of evolution."This isn't where I'm going with my argument. Let's get back to Utilitarianism."In the various moral thought experiments such as the scenario of having to divert a train to kill 1, instead of 5 people; most people do adopt utilitarian principles. However, atheistic morality must, by virtue of locating moral value in the individual determination of 'good'; be considered in a reductionist sense. Therefore, we must ask of utilitarianism, no matter how callous it may appear why? why? and why? What actually makes the salvation of 100 people over 1 the most moral action other than "I feel it is the best thing to do"."You probably missed the point. My thought process is that I don't want people to be sad, and killing 1 instead of 100 makes less people sad. Unless you do want people to be sad, this should also be your thought process.Argument:Pro wants me to show why I want to do good, and how this fits into me doing the good. Here's another basic Utilitarian argument:P1) I like being happy.P2) My girlfriend wants flowers.P3) If I give her the flowers, she'll like me more.P4) If she likes me more, I'll be happy.C) Therefore, I should get her the flowers.Defense to P1: We all like being happy. It feels good to have this feeling in you, so naturally you want to be happy whenever possible. I do this by playing video games.Defense to P2: This is the situation. My girlfriend wants flowers. I can choose to give flowers or not.Defense to P3: Naturally, if you get something you like, you'll be pleased with whoever gave you the gift. This is true in lots of games: Gift = HappyDefense to P4: If my girlfriend likes me more, I feel a closer connection. If I continue making her happy with me, we could even take it into her bedroom.But that's me. I need to answer the question of "Why should I care about others?". Well for one thing, seeing other people happy can reflect onto you, making you happy.
'Is there a sound foundation for atheistic morality?'

My opponent has recognised the difficulties an atheist faces in attempting to establish a moral philosophy; they have attempted to use utilitarianism in order to locate a secular ethical standard; let us analyse the possibility of utilitarianism serving as a basis for atheistic ethics. I would argue that utilitarianism is actually just a formalised framework for the expression of the subjective emotivism which I previously argued was all that atheistic morality could be. What this means is that atheist moral value judgement is actually little more then an expression of the emotional opinions of an atheist. And, as stated earlier most atheists sustain a belief in determinism and that morality is a random byproduct of evolution. In the various moral thought experiments such as the scenario of having to divert a train to kill 1, instead of 5 people; most people do adopt utilitarian principles. However, atheistic morality must, by virtue of locating moral value in the individual determination of 'good'; be considered in a reductionist sense. Therefore, we must ask of utilitarianism, no matter how callous it may appear why? why? and why? What actually makes the salvation of 100 people over 1 the most moral action other than "I feel it is the best thing to do". The fundamental issue the atheist apologist must answer for is the justification for a deontological and not merely teleological ethical system. In other words what reason is there for an atheist to feel a duty to act in certain way. If an atheist says 'I feel a duty to do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do'; not only are they being illogically tautological they are also committing the previously mentioned 'naturalistic fallacy' and falling prey to Hume's 'is-ought' problem. Fundamentally, to demonstrate that there is a sound foundation for atheistic morals my opponent must demonstrate with logical cogency how they move from the statement "it IS the case that I want the greatest good for the greatest number" to "I OUGHT to pursue the greatest good for the greatest number". Moreover a more explicit and full explanation of the atheistic good must be described. Indeed I contend that even if the logical basis for atheism was established (I firmly believe it won't be) then there would be huge disparity between atheists over what represents 'good'. Since all atheist moral judgements must, for the previously discussed reasons be subjective opinionated value judgements what an atheist does ascribe as good will be relatively meaningless; given the huge disagreement there would be between atheists. Any argument along the lines of "it is obvious that killing people is wrong" are not effective or valid, as I have demonstrated most atheist view human morality as a psychological quirk - hence what seems 'obviously' wrong is as arbitrary as hair colour in the atheist world view and not a 'sound foundation' for atheist morals.
'Is there a sound foundation for atheistic morality?'

Interesting to see someone questioning their own beliefs (known as Devil's Advocate). Let's see if there is a reasonable moral standard for Atheists. First, I'll examine the individual points and see what I'm dealing with. "A sound foundation" So we're seeing if it's reasonable to trust in an Atheistic Morality. If we're to believe in a set of morals, there has to be reason to abide. The resolution doesn't require me to say this foundation is better than a Theist's morals, just that the Atheist has a good reason to follow their own moral standards. "atheistic morality" Basically, how an Atheist knows right from wrong. Atheists don't believe in gods, so their sense of morality must come from a logical foundation. But the question is: What is the valid morality standard? I'd answer with Utilitarianism. It states that whatever produces more happiness than unhappiness is moral. Here's a popular example: Do I save the 1 person, or 100 people from death? I can only choose the 1 or the 100. If the 100 people died, then there would be many families grieving, whereas only 1 family would grieve over the 1 person. Seeing as how saving the 100 people produces far less unhappiness, it's moral to save them. So what do you think? Do you believe Utilitarianism is a valid foundation for Atheistic Morality?