BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A real life situation going on in my local area.

Faith and Casey go to school together. They were best friends for a year until one day Casey started getting stressed out and took his anger out on Faith and threatened to kill her. Faith and her mother called the police and they decided to press charges on Casey even though he had no weapon with him at the time he said this. He feels bad about what he said and he regrets it, but Faith and her mother keep pushing the case on. The school had to change Casey's schedule in the middle of the semester and they both had to have lunch in different locations. One of the problems is that Casey has a lot more friends than Faith and they put Casey in a place where no one hangs out and put Faith in a place where everybody hangs out. The court says that if this gets bad enough one of them will have to change schools. Casey has been in that school since 4th grade and Faith has been at that school since she was in 8th grade. Who should move Faith or Casey?
Feminism in Today's Society

Thanks, Phuzzie. Con's argument is essentially this: given that mainstream Feminism has been supplanted by female supremacy ideology, is Feminism worthy of political endorsement? The question is moot because Con's core assumption is entirely unsupported. Con's sole evidence in round 1 is anecdotal: specifically and exclusively,, Con's personal survey of news and social media. In an era when media is customized to gauge and quantify political perspective and to satisfy individual presumptions rather than challenging with objective assessment, such anecdotal evidence is subject to distortion if not outright manipulation. Against Con's single anecdote I will apply my own. I attended January's Women's March and keep in my acquaintance mostly Feminists, ranging from ordinary egalitarianists to radical anti-patriarchalists, with no experience of the supremacist ideology Con invokes. To the extent that one personal experience is not preferable on first impression to another, Con's anecdote is negated by contradictory evidence. To make the case, Con must show that supremacist ideology is the majority position within Feminism. It won't be enough to simply supply radical essays, Con must demonstrate that Feminist leadership endorses supremacy with popular support. Con must demonstrate that women politicians publicly support supremacist legislation without reproach from the majoritarian Feminist community. As far as I can tell, feminist supremacy ideology was never more than an extremist, minority position, reaching its high-water mark in the 1970's, mostly in French-speaking countries, and with little appreciable influence on Feminist activism then or now. Let's distinguish female supremacy from the notion that women, comprising the majority of the population and the electorate, ought to enjoy majority representation in elected offices or business leadership. Majority rule is just Democracy and need not imply superior civil rights or the disenfranchisement of the male minority. Let's also distinguish female supremacy from female separatism, the notion that women ought to only be governed by women or that some elements of the franchise ought to be exclusive to women. As radical and antiegalitarian as any segregationist movement, they don't necessarily imply supremacy, the subjugation of men to women's interests. I support today's Feminist movement and find Con's caricature of modern Feminism less than believable hyperbole. I look forward to Con's evidence based refutation in the second round.
Feminism in Today's Society

Feminism today is obviously a rising topic/issue/problem/whatever you'd like to call it, but nonetheless you can't argue that it isn't out there and isn't a big idea. Feminism has been on the rise in recent years, but that doesn't mean it only just became an ideology. For instance, when WWI/WWII were happening and growing into a global conflict, it called for more of America's men to step forward and serve their country. Naturally, this calling opened up a lot of needed positions in the States because now our warehouse workers, truck drivers, office workers, and just about anything else you think of were out across the world fighting for the USA. Women decided to step up and take a stand back home, no longer voices and now wanting to become real parts of society from what they were (housewives, stay-at-home moms, cooks, etc.) This was not a bad thing at all, in fact I think this benefited America in numerous ways, bringing in the equality factor, and also now that women were taking over jobs previously held by a man, I think the drive to be a harder worker and more competition for these jobs now by both men AND women sets the tone for the United States citizen's hardworking, get-s***-done spirit. Nowadays, feminist rallies and rising tensions between women supporting feminism (in my opinion) has drastically, drastically changed. No longer do I see a lot of "equality" or "equal pay" or anything along those lines - in the news and on social media I see constantly, women in support of "feminism" is now about having women become the superior. Women need better pay then men. Women should be running large companies, not men. Women should have the big-shot jobs, not men. From what I understand, feminism was initially to bring equality over topics like jobs, and pay, etc. but as mentioned, I see a lot of "feminists" assuming all men everywhere are simply looking for sex toys and treating women like a minority, that we're all misogynistic and savage. My debate here is - are you in support of TODAY's feminist movement? I for one am not. I believe if we're trying to have feminism around, it should be for equality and not what I see the majority of. Go for it. I take criticism easily and won't respond with insults or uncivilized bashing.
Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports

"First off, women's basketball is like watching an eighth grade team compared to the NBA. Not one WNBA player could make an NBA roster." That's an opinion. "The average height of a WNBA player is 6'. The average height in the NBA is 6'7". " Evidence please? Sure women are smaller but you don't need to be tall to play basketball. Sure, you could do better if you were taller, just like you could do better in Soccer if you're faster... but you could still preform well. "Men were designed to develop bigger, faster and stronger than women due to evolution." What? Of course they are... but we are talking about the MEN who play sports and the WOMEN that play sports. Not every man that plays a sport is "big" or "aggressive". Meaning a women that is considered "aggressive" could definitely beat a man who isn't. For example, for basketball (professional) men are generally taller... but there are a few select women out there tall could STILL be considered tall... Just because men are "GENERALLY" taller doesn't mean women are not tall. "We'll have to agree to disagree, but the answer to the question on who is generally more athletic between genders, males are the obviously the frontrunner." WHAT? The argument WAS NOT... "Men are generally more athletic than females.." Your argument WAS, "Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports." You proved nothing! Even if a man's usually taller than a women in basketball leagues, women should still have an opportunity to COMPETE. Besides, you're acting like every male athlete is some tall, fast, aggressive, steroid-loving, muscular Hulk Hogan.. For example, you're acting like every basketball player on a NBA is like 7'2. There are some women out there (who play) that are taller than some of the athletes that play in the NBA. Thank you for this discussion/debate. I enjoyed it.
Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports

First off, women's basketball is like watching an eighth grade team compared to the NBA. Not one WNBA player could make an NBA roster. The average heigth of a WNBA player is 6'. The average heigth in the NBA is 6'7". Men were designed to develop bigger, faster and stronger than women due to evolution. We'll have to agree to disagree, but the answer to the question on who is generally more athletic between genders, males are the obviously the frontrunner.
Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports

"Recently, I've been hearing more and more about how unfair it is that women are discluded from male dominated sports and how they could compete with the best athletes in the world. Male athletes compete at a completely different level than women" Most national/ professional sporting leagues do not allow women to play and they only desire men. For example, the NFL is basically for MEN only. Not women. It is a men's league and it's considered a (men's sport). We have never seen a women actually officially play for a season... Meaning we don't know which "level" they would be/play on. You cannot say Men play on a different "level" then the women who have never played with men. That's just assuming. "If any male and female leagues merged, there would be an extremely low percentage of women playing in this "coed" league" Good point, but that's not the argument. Even if there is NOT a lot of women playing, the ones that are can still have an opportunity to compete. I also don't agree with you in that statement. Many women are interested in Coed sports and aggressive sports in general. There is even a women coach for the Buffalo Bills and it's encouraging women to stride for Coed sports. Evidence- http://www.cnn.com... "never be a dominant female athlete who plays in a league full of men." Why? How would you know? It hasn't really happened yet has it? Women are fast, smart and they can be strong. Much stronger than a lot of men I know. Basketball is a perfect example. Women can be HUGE. A lot of women I know are very tall. Much taller then some guys in the basketball league. Woman do not have a limitation when it comes to performance. They do not have limitations when it comes to aggression as well. Anyone can be strong/aggressive and women could easily have the same perks men have to make it into a league.
Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports

You're right, women have the ability to do whatever they want whether it puts their life in danger or not but I feel like you misinterpreted my debate. Recently, I've been hearing more and more about how unfair it is that women are discluded from male dominated sports and how they could compete with the best athletes in the world. Male athletes compete at a completely different level than women. Brittany Griner plays in the WNBA and she broke a league record last year for dunking twice in a game. I'm not discouraging women from pursuing what they want but it's simple biology. If any male and female leagues merged, there would be an extremely low percentage of women playing in this "coed" league. I'm not sexist I'm just being realistic here. There obviously might be the select few women that could make a roster but there will never be a dominant female athlete who plays in a league full of men.
Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports

I would love to tackle this argument mostly because I disagree with you. Now please understand... I AM NOT female.. I am a man, who is involved with multiple sports. Women do have the capability to preform the sports men preform.. We don't kick women out of the gym if they consider lifting... because women could eventually do it too... even if more men are interested in it then women. And it's a women's decision.. It's her choice, despite the injuries, risk and such.. ITS HER DECISION. I would continue but you didn't say much, so I didn't know if you really wanted to start but I am here to defend women and men wanting to play sports as one.
Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports

Before anyone starts arguing about this issue, you must understand I'm referring to popular American sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. If you're going to argue "sports" like figure skating or gymnastics, don't waste your time. I created this debate because this is a popular issue that many people do not agree with me on. I'd like for someone to attempt to defend the opposing viewpoint, but I firmly believe men and women's sports should, for many obvious reasons, remain separated.
Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.

Exactly!...It DOES NOT counter my argument infact, it enhances it and supports it 100%.. Limited Access or NOT. My point here to you stands firm when i say to you that Access to condoms and other contraceptives do lead to promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behaviors. "Laws limiting teenagers access to contraceptive services and information fail to reduce sexual activity and increase the risk of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), according to two studies released this week " The key term here is 'FAIL'... and according to www.google.com it is defined as neglect to do something. Therefore, access or not! it still has a major impact on teenagers.
Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.

Let me just quote the first line of the article you posted. "Laws limiting teenagers access to contraceptive services and information fail to reduce sexual activity and increase the risk of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), according to two studies released this week " Doesn't this counter your argument ? Even if you limit the access to contraceptives,it'll fail to reduce sexual activity and obviously increase STD's and pregnancies. Isn't that what i'm saying ?
Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.

Again,you provide no basis for your argument . I repeat my question to you, "Did it ever happen that you were walking past a store and thought to yourself,"Hey,a Condom.I should have intercourse tonight"" Also.yes,condoms and contraceptives are not full proof.But they are very effective.STD's and unwanted pregnancies are there but without these,their rates would have been a lot higher. A study to validate my point: http://www.reuters.com...
Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.

Studies shows that condoms and other contraceptives do NOT work 100% and therefore whether or not they are available there will still be the spread of sti's/std's and there will still be a high rate of teenage/unwanted pregnancies. Just the teen knowing that they have access to that contraceptive they will abuse and overuse it therefore not being cautious because in their mind it is "suppose" to make them safe with no risks and so no" what if's" or "worries" are in their minds.
Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.

This is quite ridiculous,really.Condoms are easily available in all medical stores. Did it ever happen that you were walking past a store and thought to yourself,"Hey,a Condom.I should have intercourse tonight." It doesn't work like that. Does the availability of guns give you an "okay" to go ahead and involve yourself in killing ? Your whole argument is flawed. Now,let's look at the opposite.If you take away the condoms and contraceptive,can you even imagine the consequences ? Rampant STD's,unwanted pregnancies and a plethora of other evils.So,No.Access to Condoms and other contraceptives does not lead to promiscuity.
Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.

I am of the view that access to condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors because for example, if a school decides to give out condoms to its students then that would give the students the "okay" to go ahead and involve themselves in sexual activities. The students will take this as an opportunity to lose their virginity for those who are still pure and to continue what they have already started for those who already knows what it feels like. Providing them with condoms will make them think "hmmm...it was given to me why not use it?"
Social Media Time restrictions for 18 and under

No,this is not violation of our constitutional rights. Yes,social media is a form of a free speech and it is a good platform of those speaker who really wanted to put their own thoughts in front of all people .In today's days our young generation spend their crucial time on social media like chatting with their friends for long hours. In today's days online crime is spreading over internet and many young people is trapped in their web's.According to doctors while sitting for long hours in front of computers without taking break causes a many health problems like computer vision syndrome , sleep disorders, obesity & stress disorders . by this new bill which has been proposed in congress our young generation will be safe .they will not able to use social media for long hours .So they can utilize their crucial time by studying and spent their time with family also . and they can play outdoor games which is beneficial for their health . In other word we can say that it will be benefited for our society because young generation is our coming future of our nation and society . Lastly I would say that this bill is beneficial for young generation along with our society and nation.
Social Media Time restrictions for 18 and under

A radical new bill has been proposed in Congress that would limit the amount of time young people could spend on social networking sites and apps. The bill would require users under the age of 18 to have a common login across all social media apps and websites. Using this common login, one would be limited to a single hour of social media use per day. After the hour is used up, individuals will not longer be able to use social media until the next 24-hour window. Is this a violation of our Constitutional rights? Is social media a form of free speech?
Sea lions are seals

Id like to start by arguing against P1 and P2 P1 - While sea lions are part of one of the families described above there are various physical differences such as The flippers on a sea lion being larger and mainly covered with skin while in comparison the seals are thinly webbed with a claw on each small "toe". Another difference is the ears as seals have ear holes and sea lions have ear flaps which are more easily visible. Seals are more suitable to water due to their inability to walk on their flippers but instead only shuffle around on their bellies. Lastly seals are less social then sea lions. Seals only come up onto ground to mate while sea lions come regularly in "herds" that can reach up to 1500 sea lions. Source: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... P2 - This is the same as P1 from what I can see. However the fact that they are part of the Otariidae family still stands as true. Conclusion: Due to these physical differences sea lions are not seals.
Sea lions are seals

The use of sources such as scientific articles is permitted. Plagiarizing those sources is not permitted.Argument -P1 - Any organism of the taxonomic family Phocidae or Otariidae is a seal.P2 - All sea lions are organisms of the taxonomic family Otariidae.C1 - Therefore, all sea lions are seals.This argument is valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.* "P" is an abbreviation for "premise" and "C" is an abbreviation for "conclusion".Support for P1 -Support for P1 comes in the form of encyclopedic and dictionary entries for the word "seal". These references are reputable, sufficiently numerous, and are inclusive of the taxonomic families mentioned in P1. The family names have been emphasized. Encyclopedia Britannica [1] any of 32 species of web-footed aquatic mammals that live chiefly in cold seas and whose body shape, round at the middle and tapered at the ends, is adapted to swift and graceful swimming. There are two types of seals: the earless, or true, seals (family Phocidae); and the eared seals (family Otariidae), which comprise the sea lions and fur seals. Oxford Dictionary [2] A fish-eating aquatic mammal with a streamlined body and feet developed as flippers, returning to land to breed or rest. Families Phocidae (the true seals) and Otariidae (the eared seals, including the fur seals and sea lions). The latter have external ear flaps and are able to sit upright, and the males are much larger than the females American Heritage Dictionary [3] Any of various aquatic carnivorous mammals of the families Phocidae and Otariidae, found chiefly in cold regions and having a sleek torpedo-shaped body and limbs that are modified into paddlelike flippers. Collins Dictionary [4] any of two families (Otariidae and Phocidae) of sea carnivores with a doglike head, a torpedo-shaped body, and four webbed feet or flippers: they live in cold or temperate waters and usually eat fish see also eared seal, earless seal Support for P2 - Support for P2 comes in the form of encyclopedic and dictionary entries for the term "sea lion." These references are reputable, sufficiently numerous, and demonstrate that sea lion species are of the family Otariidae, which is also referred to as "eared seals." [1][2] "Otariidae" and/or "eared seal" have been emphasized. Encyclopedia Britannica [5] any of five species of eared seals found primarily in Pacific waters. Sea lions are characterized by a coat of short, coarse hair that lacks a distinct undercoat. Except for the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), males have lion-like manes and constantly roar to defend their harems (hence their name). Oxford Dictionary [6] An eared seal occurring mainly on Pacific coasts, the large male of which has a mane on the neck and shoulders. Five genera and species in the family Otariidae American Heritage Dictionary [7] Any of several large seals of the family Otariidae, having a blunter muzzle and a thinner coat than the fur seals, especially the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Collins Dictionary [8] any of several genera of large, eared seals without underfur, usually living in colonies along the Pacific coastline