BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Children Of Today Have An Edge Over The Adults In Exposure And Opportunities

Hey Kev, Glad to debate you again, although you will probably slaughter my record.lol The same point I made when I first accepted this debate was that kids can learn from what their ancestors and elders have done in the past. Then, when our generation has its turn to run the country, it can not make the bad decisions that our leaders before have done. For example, you think America is going to let some random guy come in (lets call him Radolf Bitler) and slowly take control of our political system? No. Now that the holocaust happened before us, we know how to prevent that from happening again. Also, kids can see what successful people have done in the past to get high up on the food chain. If some kid wants to be the richest kid in the world, the can invest in the same companies that some rich guy did, and go to the same college, get the same degree. Soon we have a carbon copy of Donald Trump. Another case in financial possibilities is stocks. The richest guy in the world right now sits at home eating chips watching TV. All he had to do was watch the stocks on his computor and invest in a few good ones. Kids could hit it big in the stock market nowadays, where before it wsn't even close to the value it has now. Buisnesses are growing, all of America is growing, and with that, the money going into those stocks is growing. Next, the real estate market is down. You can buy a residence pretty cheap nowadays, and all the time it is going down, making houses and apartments even cheaper for young adults growing up.Last, the minimum wage has been increasing alot in the past few years. It has a jump of a few cents every year. Also, all of the democrats are pushing it to become higher every day. Soon, kids will be able to work at shoprite or staples and have enough money to afford a nice car and apartment. See ya Kev Good luck
The Children Of Today Have An Edge Over The Adults In Exposure And Opportunities

This debate is interesting. We are definetly not the same America that we were 50 years ago. I think that with the change in media that we have really is making a change in the way the youth of America today interpret the way they want to grow up. one example may be rap. The youth think that they can make it in life with a gun in one hand and a ho in another.(I'm not saying all rap but alot of it does incorprate that) It's wrong. We are moving into a America with no morales and a desire to get the easiest way out. Maybe this has to do with the de christianing of America. In the America of old the youth were taught of having good morals and being a good person to go to heaven. Somehow somewhere it went wrong because now the youth of america aren't taught those morals. (not to down on those that do) So what i mean by that is that the ambition might not be there in a lot of Americans from the Americans of old so that might be something in this debate
Women in Combat

After reading the debate, "Should women be allowed to serve in equal combat roles in armed forces?" I decided to challenge Con so that we can get into further discussion about this topic. This is a subject that has occupied my thoughts for a while, and I believe it would be interesting to go into deeper discussion about the matter with someone else who shares a differing perspective than mine. My position is that women should be "allowed" in combat if they have the merit. Of course, I recognize that there are potential pitfalls to women in equal combat roles as men, and I expect my opponent to lay down these pitfalls in a clear and concise manner with explanation for each. I will, in turn, present the positives as well as counter reasons with explanation as to why these negatives do not outweigh the benefits of women fighting in combat. If the negatives outweigh these reasons, then my opponent wins. If vice versa, I win. The decision of which side "outweighs" the other can be discussed, but will ultimately be up to the discretion of the voters. However, I ask that the voters base their decision on the guidelines provided by DDO as well as the ground rules outlined in this debate. The first round will be acceptance Second round will be arguments/rebuttals Third round will be further arguments/rebuttals Final round will be conclusions I look forward to dabbling in this topic with my opponent. May the best debater win. Original debate below: http://www.debate.org...
Women in Combat

"Just because a woman may not have the same level of physical strength as a man does not mean she lacks the physical strength required to be a combat soldier." It is known that when in a combat zone, women carry up to 100 lbs less of equipment than men. Not only that, but many interviews with ex-army women prove that women's bodies simply can't take it. For example, watch this video: https://www.mca-marines.org... Basic physical strength is necessary because you never know what might come up. For example, there is an injured soldier, and someone needs to get him to safety. A woman comes up and tries but she is not physically strong enough to drag him all the way there. You mentioned "carry 95 pounds for 50 meters while wearing full combat gear". The woman would have to carry more than 95 pounds, the man by himself might weigh 180-200, plus 70 or more pounds of combat gear. "There is no guarantee as to how two individuals will react and behave towards one another on and off the battlefield." Yes, there is no guarantee, but it is known that whether you like it or not, there will be romantic interaction between the sexes. "male would inherently become distracted and compelled to protect the female as opposed to the lead soldier, would that not be more of the man's problem than it would be the woman's?" A woman could be in the exact same position. I just used a man as an example. "If we consider the abilities that female combat soldiers possess and what they can and do contribute, it becomes evident that equal opportunity does not weaken the military, but rather achieves quite the opposite" I disagree. If the standards were the same, then yes. Although yes, you could argue that a woman wouldn't necessarily use those skills (like climbing up walls), but it a basic exercise that prepares a soldier's endurance and strength, you never know what might happen and when you need to be strong. For example, take football players. They do exercises like benching large amounts of weight. Yes, they might not need to lift 200 pounds of dead-weight in a game, but it is a skill that makes them a stronger and overall more effective player. I am not making fun of it, but menstruation may also be a problem. In the extremely stressful environment that is presented by being in direct combat, emotional effects of menstruation may be even more dramatic. I know that it varies from woman to woman, but it is a factor that must be considered.
Women in Combat

"Bottom line is that if a woman is able to meet the requirements of a combat soldier, she therefore serves as an asset, and overall adds to the nation's military. Thus, with the inclusion of women in equal combat roles as men, the military will be amplified not only in numbers, but in quality as well." I absolutely agree that if women are allowed in direct combat, then numbers will go up. The problem lies with quality. Military standards have been lowered for women in order to make it easier to get into the military. This means that lower quality soldiers are entering the military, which can have many detrimental affects. First of all, with the entry of lower quality soldiers, the overall quality of the military is reduced. This means that some troops (or larger units) can be relied on more than others, meaning there will be unexpected issues because the soldier (or larger unit) could not handle a certain task. If lower quality soldiers are in combat, that means that death rate will go up. For example, you have 4 soldiers, each one is covering one of the cardinal directions. If one of the soldiers is lower quality, this increases the risk that not only will that soldier die, but because everyone is depending on the soldier to defend that direction, if the soldier fails, then everyone dies. (Exaggeration for purpose of example.) In conclusion, death rate will go up because not only is the lower quality soldier dying, but because others depended on him/her, those others may die as well. http://www.thedailybeast.com... (Yes, there are women who are great soldiers, and men who are bad ones, but the fact that standards have been lowered for women opens room for poorer soldiers to enter). There is also a problem with the mixing of sexes. Whether you like it or not, men and women are prone to flirt and get into relationships. This makes it harder to focus. Not only will this affect focus in training, but also in critical moments in combat. For example, in combat, a man sees an enemy shooting at the leader of the group. At the same time, he notices a threat to a female that he's in a relationship with or is interested in. This will not only cause hesitation (which may lead to the death of both), but the man might choose to save the female instead of the leader of the group who is a higher priority soldier. For comparison, let's take a look at uni-sex vs. mixed schools. Because there are less distractions from the opposite sex, uni-sex schools generally have higher scores and success rates. http://www.singlesexschools.org... As for "equal opportunity" goes, the military is not made for equal opportunities, the military is made to effectively function and defend its mother nation. Putting equality into the picture may jeopardize the effectiveness of the military. Since the standards are not equal, then equality cannot be a subject of debate.
increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA

you definitely do well in stressing that tax cuts can make a signifiant improvement on the deficit. which i never contested, id rather have a balanced approach in cuts and increases. but the cuts do not seem politically feasible, and i question the math. feasibiity. i could go through and just criticizse most of them in this regard. fraud isnt always easy to just crack down on, it's never so obvious. eliminating department of commerce, or department of energy etc definitely isnt, they do a lot of good, not to get into whether they are worth it. just politially it aint gonna happen. you said your cuts weren't really that contestable, but they are actually hugely contestable. math. adding up the specific numbers you showed didnt total what i see. id have to trust your reference or assume the vague references that dont specify numbers made up for it. this is too much to assume, and just looking at the overall budget id have to question you could make it happen the way you say i will go along though that cuts can contribute significantly to a balanced budget. im even a lot more libertarian in this regard than most people, i just dont see it as happening all with cuts.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

Pro says that Christians don't do the awful things described in the Old Testament. Pro seems to forget that Christians are also mandated to do those things. Consider that the reason Christians don't do those things is because they don't interpret the Old Testament literally. The resolution reads: "freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm. " Because Pro is making the claim, Pro has the BOP. Her argument has been that because Judaism leads to violence, it should be limited. Pro has failed to offer any concrete evidence that Judaism is actually a violent religion; therefore, Pro cannot meet her BOP. Ultimately, due to a lack of any real evidence or of any warrants at all, except a faulty interpretation of the Old Testament (assuming most people read it literally), Pro hasn't met her BOP and you must default Con.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

christianity does not do any 'awfule things described' stonging and such is mandated to the OTestament jews, not the christians. pro seems to be conceding the debate.... you say those who do do those awful things "should be punished as individuals; the whole religion should not be banned or modified." . no one is claiming they could, or would be able, to modify a religion. they are simply banning what is wrong in the religion from being practiced. if you would punish people who do do those awful things, then you are esentially agreeing with me, that the religion should not be permitted to be fully practiced.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

Thanks to Pro for her arguments. The resolution reads: "freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm. " The question at hand here is whether or not Judaism's practice entails violent acts. Clearly, it does not. Pro says: "cause christianity doesn't require its adherents to do the awful things described. " Yet, if we interpret the Bible literally, Christianity DOES REQUIRE its adherent to do the awful things described. Yet, because Christians don't interpret the Bible literally, they don't commit those actions. The same is true for Jews. Most Jews don't go out into society and start stoning adulteresses; in fact, most would believe that to be wrong, Individuals who do go off the deep-end with their interpretation of the Old Testament (and their are Christians who do this as well) should be punished as individuals; the whole religion should not be banned or modified.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

first a clarification. i dont think we should outright ban that religion. we should limit it, from being fully practiced. con says if judiasm should be limited or banned, then christianity should. but, this doesn't follow, cause christianity doesn't require its adherents to do the awful things described. how exactly does this make sense? co says we shouldn't interpret the texts literally. perhaps not. but if people do, it should be illegal. that's all the point i'm trying to make. plus, many of the texts are clear commands to kill, marry your rapist, treat daughters as property, etc.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

Lol...I guess I can accept this. Let's take some time to define what Judaism is. "Judaism is a monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Mishnah and the Talmud." [1] The Torah itself, "refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy." [2] Thus, to use the phrase "old testament Judaism" is a misnomer, since all Jews follow the old testament. Essentially, what my opponent is advocating is making Judaism illegal. Besides the clearly Nazi-esque undertones evoked by this stance, there are some clear issues Pro's primary assertion, which is that: because the Torah/Old Testament calls upon us to do things that we realize are wrong, any religion founded on the Torah/Old Testament is barbaric or violent. (1) Christianity is founded on the old testament. The Bible includes the exact same books as the Torah, and both call upon us to do unsavory things, including killing people who disown or disrespect their parents, Leviticus 20:9, killing people who use the Lord's name in vain, Levitcus 24:16, and offering up animal sacrifices, Leviticus, Chapters 1-9. Clearly, none of these are rational or acceptable things to do (at least from our modern perspective.) So, if Judaism should be illegal because its religious texts are violent, so too should Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and many other faiths. We would all have to become atheists or Buddhists. (2) Simply because the texts describe violent acts does not mean that we should interpret those acts literally. For example, when the old testament states "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him" (Leviticus 20:9), it is not literally calling us to kill someone. Rather, it is emphasizing the wrongness of the action, and that the person who curses his father or mother deserves some form of punishment. Most Jews and Christians don't follow the text of the Torah or Bible literally, rather they interpret it as setting out generic guidelines of what is right or wrong. This is evidenced by our modern judicial system--obviously, we don't put people to death for trivial things like that. (3) Our right to freedom of religion is fundamental. We can't just outlaw religions because we find their beliefs detestable. Rather, we can outlaw certain practices of a faith (i.e. not stoning people), but the faith itself can't be outlawed. I await Pro's responses.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm the USA is known to be a religiously tolerant society. but, old testament judiasm permits or requires things that go against our commonly accept values and laws. examples. in the old testament, people are to be put to death for what many would consider trivial moral infractions, slavery is often permitted or directed, women are treated as property, a woman raped can be forced to marry her rapist. to name a few. it's not the point of the debate. but that a country as tolerant as the USA would not and should not allow it to be practiced, says a lot about the religion.
Why death penalty is a good thing.

Tragically yes, many people are wrongly accused of things and get executed for things that they didn't do, and there isn't really anything that you can tell the families of that person but i'm sorry. If someone is accused of something, it's because the evidence led authorities to believe that this person did it, and punishment is given. As for the cost of execution, I think that you are absolutely correct, it cost way too much to execute somebody today. The problem though, is not the execution that cost money, it is the means of execution. you have to have way too many other things other than the drug itself to perform lethal injection. I think that the cost of execution, should only be the cost of a bullet. As for the psychological effects of jail, there are none. There are some jail cells that have cable TV. That is stupid. Rarely, mistakes are made but most of the people that are executed deserve it.
Why death penalty is a good thing.

Hey Das. I believe that the Death Penalty is NOT a good thing. It costs more to put a man to death, rather than keep him alive. Another thing with the death penalty is that you don't know if the man who is about to be put to death is in fact, guilty of the crime. How do you repay the loved ones of a person wrongly put to death? It is no different than murder. One must also take into account the Psychological effects of life in prison. I know I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life inside of a cell with none of my hobbies to keep me busy, not to mention living life with something horrible and wrong on your conscience. The death penalty seems the easy way out. Look forward to your response.
A persons environment influence choices more than free will

Pardon me, I forgot you were a Deist. I apologize. To rebute what you said about God being a God of fear, you have to remember one thing, He doesn't rule by fear. He believes in a relationship based on trust. When you betray God, it's very hard to forgive that (it's not impossible). God doesn't want anyone in Hell, however He cannot accept sin. It doesn't mean He likes to send people ot Hell, as God has no joy over the death of the wicked. Jesus lived a completely holy life.
A persons environment influence choices more than free will

You have made some really good points, but let me remind you that a majority of people born in horrible backgrounds (environments) tend to stay in that environment. But since you claim I am not a religious man, I ask you how does God enforce his Commandments? The answer is Hell, because people fear this environment, so it is meant to deter you from "Unholy Sins". Not only this, but a person who is about to commit a crime might not do it because we live in an environment governed by laws. And generally people know that if they break these laws they will be placed in an environment (Jail) that they don't want to be in. So the environment that provides law will influence a persons choice on whether or not to commit that crime. Also, not every person is religious. Growing up in a religious background is another form of an environment, even becoming religious in later years is a person's environment. And although people claim to be religious, they don't follow the bible one hundred percent.Why? Because maybe they were taught about God sporadically and rarely. and that environmental factor will play in if they are deciding a choice based off of "Religious Morality". But even die hard Christians have sinned. A very devoted catholic man has committed adultery before. And that was because "It Was In The Moment". He saw the naked woman and they were alone (environment) and almost without thought he slept with her. He didn't really do it on purpose, he just reacted off his environment. It's like when a mother sees her kid getting bullied, she will react in a certain way and probably fight the bully. We react (and react is another way of saying made a choice) off of our environment. Lastly,(please keep in mind that any statement regarding religion is not intended to promote or harm the ideologies expressed by the religion being commented on) Jesus can not be included in this argument. Since we never fully followed Jesus Christ around, there is no way to validate your claim "Jesus never sinned". Therefor, your statement is an opinion. Again, Thank you for the debate and I really enjoyed reading your arguments.
A persons environment influence choices more than free will

Thank you too. But I would like to say this. Did you believe that "temptation" and "desire" are the same? If so, then that's incorrect. Temptation and desire are not the same. Ever heard the saying, "He that looketh at another woman lustfully is already committing adultery in his heart?" That's because temptation and desire are not the same. Many people came from broken homes and backgrounds, but they still managed to hold strong. In an environment where crime, gangs and porn is the norm, the temptation will be there. Temptation is persuasion basically. It sounds good. But that's where the line is drawn between being tempted and having desire. I know you're not religious, but think of it this way. Jesus did not sin, but he was tempted. He never had a heart to do sinful things. Most people born in the ghetto don't have a desire for sinful things, and I mean sinful not necessarily in the religious sense, but in vices. Most don't. But they are tempted often. Of course sinful things such as fornication, drinking, revenge when angered are appealing, but it doesn't translate to doing it.