BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism is not an ideology of equality

"I fail to see the point of providing definitions for terms that are generally clear, because I assume that most people are educated, intelligent human beings who know what words mean. Until they prove me otherwise." I have provided a dictionary definition. I would assume that that is the first place to look for "what words mean". "You're right. Demanding equality can mean that one party is inferior to another, and the superior wants to be placed in the same category as the inferior. The problem there is that that is not feminism. That's called humanism, or more accurately, egalitarianism, which is generally included in the beliefs of most humanists, like myself." I agree, except for the "that is not feminism" part. Feminism is a part of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is equality for everyone, Feminism is equality for men & women. You can be feminist without being egalitarian, but you can't be egalitarian without being a feminist. "Why don't we stop inventing seperate [sic] categories for a universal problem and start addressing the issue as a cohesive unit?" The debate is not called "should we address different types of discrimination separately?" I would be glad to address all forms of discrimination in one unit, but that does not mean feminism is not a philosophy of equality. "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them." I already gave you the definition of feminism, and from a dictionary. It has nothing to do with giving one side more attention. Show me a reputable source saying that this is the DEFINITION of feminism, and I might be willing to accept it.
Feminism is not an ideology of equality

I fail to see the point of providing definitions for terms that are generally clear, because I assume that most people are educated, intelligent human beings who know what words mean. Until they prove me otherwise.You're right. Demanding equality can mean that one party is inferior to another, and the superior wants to be placed in the same category as the inferior. The problem there is that that is not feminism. That's called humanism, or more accurately, egalitarianism, which is generally included in the beliefs of most humanists, like myself.And just because I can, I'll humour you:Egalitarianism 1. belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, or economic life [1]. Why don't we stop inventing seperate categories for a universal problem and start addressing the issue as a cohesive unit? Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them.And just to rule out a pointless ad hominem attack, I'd say the exact same thing about MRA organizations that claim equality yet proudly call themselves 'mens rights activists'.[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Feminism is not an ideology of equality

"The problem with that definition, and the philosophy it describes, presupposes that men have superior rights than women in every single case." The definition presupposes no such thing! It merely states that feminism is a philosophy of equality between genders. There are cases where women get more rights than men, and vice versa, but this is not actual feminism. You have not provided any of your own definitions, so I had the burden of providing them. I provided them, from a dictionary, and you have provided none. "That's not true. Men are not treated anywhere near fairly when it comes to child custody and child support cases [1]. Women are sentenced to 40% less prison time than men, for equivalent crimes, and more likely to avoid conviction altogether [2]. Prostate cancer, despite having a more-or-less equal rate of mortality and severity, recieves drastically less funding than breast cancer [3]." I never said that women were treated worse than men in today's society. There are double standards on both sides, and the aim of GENUINE feminism is to get rid of both. By definition, any movement which does not demand equality between men and women is not feminist. "The term 'equality for women' is a contradiction in and of itself." Nonsense! It simply means getting rid of gender-related double standards. Not implementing them on one side, but eliminating them altogether.
Feminism is not an ideology of equality

Until I am corrected, I'm going to operate on the assumption that you're a feminist due to this debate format. Therefore, it makes sense that you'd attempt to distance yourself from the undesireables that I purport exist. The problem with that definition, and the philosophy it describes, presupposes that men have superior rights than women in every single case. That's not true. Men are not treated anywhere near fairly when it comes to child custody and child support cases [1]. Women are sentenced to 40% less prison time than men, for equivalent crimes, and more likely to avoid conviction altogether [2]. Prostate cancer, despite having a more-or-less equal rate of mortality and severity, recieves drastically less funding than breast cancer [3]. I could go on with domestic violence, hospital treatment, circumscision, education, drafting, etc.The term 'equality for women' is a contradiction in and of itself.[1]http://www.census.gov...[2]http://misformalevolent.blogspot.ca...[3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Feminism is not an ideology of equality

Feminism has morphed into a misbegotten ideology whose only purpose is to rally people behind a bigoted cause: that women are the oppressed party in every scenario, and we should pander to them whenever they cry that their feelings are hurt or that they are the victim in court cases. It has also nuked the fridge on the idea of the patriarchy and 'rape culture'. Without a doubt, patriarchy would have been an appropriate description of society 200 years ago. Even 50 years ago you could make the case for a patriarchy existing. Now, this society (the United States in particular) is not a patriarchal one. Feminism had utility in the early 1900's, when women really were oppressed and rallying behind a figurehead and standing up for their rights was exactly what was required, and perhaps heavily Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia could do with a healthy dose of that kind of feminism, but certainly not the kind of 'Punch Men', politically correct, Tumblr-feminism that has taken hold of people in the United States.
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

I am only capable of retorting what arguments my opponent provides. If he chooses to provide a small agrument, I am forced to point out small errors. I'm actually making this debate impersonal, not personal. My opponent did not read the last line of my last argument obviously. Also, the "perceptual fallacy" is not an actual fallacy. I'm unsure what my opponent is refering to by it. Furthermore, I'm making no effort to detest Con, I'm rather only contesting his points and leaving it at that.
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

Con thinks I excpect him to refer to me as "Por". I most certainly do not. He may refer to me whatever he chooses, however him speaking to me directly is only a detriment to him, as it causes the readers to feel excluded from his argument. Uninformerd, in a way. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Con is a noun, a position in a debate. One who holds a position in an opinion or view. Con holds his opinion as con, therefore he is Con in this debate. Con is capitalized when referring to the opposition to avoid confusion. When I say Con did something stupid, It's the same as saying Aerogant did something stupid. The only difference is the former is more formal and and less personal. A debate is not meant to be personal.
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

That would be a typo. (Damn it Wizard of Oz.) Con is not a noun - it's an adjective to describe a position. My example used the same exact context that you use. You refer to me as Con; I refer to you as Por (well, you expect me to); the skinny man refers to the guy as fat man and vice versa. Throughout this, it's all towards the audience.
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

Con says he never claimed my name was "Dorothy" He's right, he didn't. He claimed my name was "Dorthy". Please review his round 1 argument. He address me as Dorthy without using quotation marks, therefore claiming that I am to be reffered to by the name "Dorthy" If you call a guy "Idiot", you are suggesting he is an idiot. Con can also be a noun. For example, Aerogant is Con to the resolution. His example is not relevant. His example assumes both parties are arguing, not debating. In that case, the parties would speak directly to eachother. In our case, both parties are speaking to an audience, not eachother. Therefore calling him Con still fits. If you assume in my opponent's example that the fat guy and skinny guy are speaking to an audience, then the dialogue makes sense.
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

While I never claimed your name was Dorothy; that was part of a story that was written as an allusion to realistic issues in life, but you felt the need to claim your name was Alexander. You cannot call me Con, because Con isn't a person - it's a position. When a skinny guy and a fat guy argue, it's not "skinny guy said I was fat; I am not fat, I am big boned" vs. "fat guy said being skinny was mainstream; he has to prove it's mainstream".
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

Con's claim last round was he is not con. Then he proceeds to say he is con. This shows he is a liar. His word is not to be trusted. I refer to him as Con because a debate is a presentation to an audience of voters, not a discussion between two people. I'm addressing him by Con because I'm explaining to the audience why he is incorrect. Besides, there are far more people who read this debate than the single person I'm debating against, I'm speaking to the majority.
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

Con only has a single contention. "Pro is Dorthy" Actually, my name Is Alexander. I'm unsure how he confused that with "Dorthy". Alexander is masculine, Dorthy is feminine. Alexander has an "A" in it. Dorthy has a "D". I'm also confused as to this husband I'm supposed to have. I'm not currently even married, much less to the same sex. Seeing as marriage is not only illegal at my age, but also very rare, I'd have to conclude that me being married is unlikely. Furthermore, I'm a straight male. Therefore me being married to a man is also unlikely, though I have heard of girls that call eachother hubbys. However I feel that is also irrelevant. Finally, I do not have a son. His name is not Tommy and he is not a "bloody ejit". Where's my proof you may ask? Stop asking questions.
Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

Well Dorthy, you're a bloody ejit. My name is not Tommy - I am a projection of your mind within your dream. I am here to haunt you for your precarious actions towards your son. Here let me show you *transforms into a deadly spider* - now, now, there's no need to be afraid. I'm only a projection of a deadly spider. I cannot really hurt you; everything that you may feel is your own fear deceiving you. Now listen to my disembodied voice through the spider projection and listen well. Your son needs you to help him understand what he is experiencing; telling him that it's all a dream will lead to this *shoots radioactive venom at a wall, causing the wall to deteriorate, revealing a room where an older version of her son is murdering her husband in the kitchen* - why are you crying? Those tears you have are from your shame. You know that deep down your husband is cruel to your son and the monster in his dream is a projection of your husband's cruelty and the pain he suffers being reflected through his subconscious. Telling him to ignore it will cause consequences to inevitably surface one day; your little Tommy will one day lose control over this conflict inside them and act out on it when the human mind cannot bottle it up any longer. You will suffer - your husband will get what's coming to him and your son will have to live with blood on his hands and a monster that eats away what's left of your son when he cannot escape this void, for death is a one-way ticket. When you wake from this dream, you will go to your son and talk to him about what he was dreaming and make sense of the symbols being projected by his subconscious - tie them to what issues may exist in his life and start making connections so you can save your son from becoming the very thing that ate away at him every night, just so you can ignore his pleas as if it was all some sort of imagination. Wake up mother, pain is life; pain is the truth. What you're feeling right now is the best feeling one could ask for. Let go, mother - there's a world inside each and everyone one of us that grows bigger than the reality we share on the outside. Before I go, I will remind you that your husband is always calling you and your son a "bloody ejit". Do not forget this message - if you do, your son will forget himself.
Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

Conclusion: I am withdrawing from the current debate because it is not worth arguing with someone who claims that Fox News is a "fair" and "centered" news source. Fox News is the farthest right wing news source in America, and has posted a story from a SATIRE website as FACT on their show. You are clearly caught up in the right-wing agenda, and that is fine. But a debate needs to be made on the basis of fact, not opinions, and "facts" from sources that are completely biased. I believe I have proven that Obama was a better president than Reagan if not just on the fact that my findings were sound. I used non biased sources. If I found a source and felt it was too left, I would go looking for a more balanced one. Where my opponent uses sources like The Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and articles written by conservative economists who worked FOR Reagan. I find that this type of conduct in a debate is unacceptable, which is why I will no longer present anymore arguments on my behalf, seeing as this debate is going no where. Thank you for your time.
a responsible thing to do for the USA is to increase taxes

we spend 3.5 trillion a year. our deficit is like half a trillion. we can only find insufficient things to cut. you can rail against things like the department of education or depart of housing etc, but you will find you are talking about small fries. we spend about a fifth on healthcare, a fifth on defense, another on social security, another on interest, and the rest on general governance. to oversimplify s the proportions aren't quite that and mroe could be added to say healthcare. that means cutting those departments is cutting a fraction of the budget. you could cut general governance in half, and it'd only be like ten percent of our budget. paying for the poor as the major problem is a myth as hte feds only spend not much beyond ten percent on them. reputable sources say our debt is manageable.... but it won't be forever. we need to balance the budget. cutting entitlements ain't gonna work politically. cutting general governance will only take you so far. the poor as the problem is a myth. we've been borrowinng against our future so long that it's starting to catch up with us. it isn't all that politically feasible, but increasing taxes is the most politically feasible thing to do. and it's not like this is without precedent. our tax rates have been much hghe on a regular basis in the past.
should teachers be aloud to be armed with a weapon

I accept. Resolved: Should teachers be allowed to be armed with a gun? With a normative resolution, the burden is evenly split. However, CON doesn't give a single argumen. Therefore, i only need to provide a single positive argument to win this debate. I. Last line of defense against school shootingsWe know that criminals do not follow laws - so they will not obey if the school happens to be a "gun free zone." Instead, we're disarming the good guys, and removing their right to self-defense.
The Pay Gap is not factually based and is not based upon people with the same job and same results

I think the whole pay gap is based on the general number of average earnings but when never we every see these specific cases of unequal pay. I have never seen anyone show me an actual case where someone was payed unequally for doing the same job at the same level. If businesses really wanted to pay women less, wouldn't they hire more women? It would make sense from a financial perspective to pay someone less for the same job. If you have a specific case of this, it can be reported to the police as a violation of the Equal Pay Act signed into law by John F. Kennedy. And for saying that anti-left movements are shown the media in a spotlight. Then why are liberal protests the only thing every shown on the news. The left gets the benefit of the doubt from the media because whenever somebody criticized Obama, someone would play the racist card and now the sexist card with Hillary. Bring some legitimate examples of unequal pay by sex and then I could possibly switch sides. (P.S. better not be the top results on Google)
The Pay Gap is not factually based and is not based upon people with the same job and same results

My goal on this website is to attempt to reach out to people who have been drawn in by the anti feminist, anti-left 'Skeptic' brigade, by responding to some of their more common claims. Pro's claim 'The Pay Gap only exists due to biology, no sexism!' claim is probably one that irks me in particular. Some people have a weird, strawman version of feminists in their heads, because their views of feminism have been shaped by seeing silly comments made on Tumblr, and sickening compilations. Can Pro, and everyone else reading this, please realize and acknowledge that all of feminism is not represented by this, and actually academic feminist theory is a real, legitimate thing that exists? You may wonder, why am I typing this? Well, this tends to be the main argument used by people like pro. 'Look how stupid these feminists are, look how clueless they are.' The belief that there is enough evidence to prove that the pay gap is 100% biological is non-existent, and I'll try to explain why. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't any biological factors, because there are. I'm just saying that there is no definitive proof that the gap is completely due to biology. I ask Pro to refrain from explaining to me how men and women differ biologically, because no one is denying that. Please instead prove that the gap is due to biology rather than environmental factors. I'm not going to make any arguments in this first section, but I will layout what my argument will be over this debate: There is no definite proof that the gender pay gap only exists due to biology Many studies have suggested environmental factors which discourage women from going into certain fields In certain fields, actual sexism probably exists If Pro chooses to continue the debate, then I will aim to complete my argument.
The Pay Gap is not factually based and is not based upon people with the same job and same results

The pay gap is in no way based upon the pay of men and women for even the same job. It's is based on average earnings for every man and woman. The reason why women don't have to same average earnings as men is because they are more women stay at home with their kids, actually have kids and need leave in order to do that, are more likely to take safer jobs, would rather have flexibility over larger income, work less overtime, take more vacations and also do less physically demanding work. This is not a dig on women, women and men are wired differently and because of this men are more likely to have material goals while women are more likely to have goals of happiness, etc, and for a lot of people happiness is being at home with kids not having to worry about deadlines or requirements.
Medical cannabis

Look at this from a different point of view. In your argument you stated "Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses" There are many other medications that are being developed and have been developed for quite some time that have effects similar to the effects of cannabis without the risk of being used for the wrong purposes. In many cases the use of medical marijuana is abused by the patient who requested it, they over exaggerate the pain that they are in, it results in a more medication then they would need. "Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers" This is not always true as the illness is not always well known and there is little research out for it, sometimes patients request more than is necessary. Medical marijuana is also very expensive and is not always covered by insurance companies. In short marijuana is pointless and not necessary for pain relief. In the least the only thing it would be good for is a substitute for other drugs out there that are better known and are more efficient pain relievers.
Medical cannabis

Medical cannabis has been proven to ease symptoms of painful illness. Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses, and has proven effective. If you were in the position of these people. In pain and nothing can take that pain away, wouldn't you want medical cannabis to cure the pain? Your connotations of marijuana are making your view of this effective treatment blocked. Think of this argument from their point of view. They're in pain and suffering and what may take this away they aren't granted? Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers. Medical cannabis has been proven to work, and should be legalized. You need to look at cannabis separately from recreational marijuana to fully understand why cannabis should be allowed.
Medical cannabis

You clearly don't understand what i'm getting at.... I've said it before and i'll say it again. Say you smoke Marijuana for the first time, it might take very little to get you to a high compared to the metric sh*t ton it might take somone whose been taking marijuana for years. Same may be true for painkillers but the difference is we understand the levels better. We can control how much we give to people and we understand much better than we have in the past. Painkiller addictions are becoming less and less due to advances in medical science, same cannot be said for marijuana. If as you say "everything can be abused, it's up to the individual" Then your statement about the effects of painkiller overdose is completely irellivent. If you understand how much you need to take and you talk to your doctor effectivly than you should have no problems with painkillers, if that is the case then why in the world would you ever need marijuana!? This debate is a joke, you clearly aren't reading everything that i'm typing!
Medical cannabis

Obviously you do not understand the full effects of pain killer overdose. It can lead to heart attacks and strokes, even simple painkillers (i.e. Ibuprofen). You say "f you take them responsibly there will be no negative outcomes both economic and personal (addictions)." about painkillers. This is the same case with cannabis. Everything can be abused, it's up to the individual. Everything is addictive in it's own way, but you cannot ban everything at the risk of addiction. Even if addiction occurs, there is ways to rise from it. Instead of living in fear of cannabis addiction, simply learn to overcome it.