BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Almost half of all rape accusations are false.

A gender problemFirstly, I have to point out that not only women get raped. Pro is always taking about women being the victim, which is false. Then all the "statistical guesses" He made are biased and invalid. This is know as the false dilemma fallacy. He describes this issue as being a kind of fight between the women who accuses and the men who are accused. This is indeed false. Rape isn't always from men against women, but can also be from men to men, from women to men and from women to women. This whole stance is then biased and not a rational argument.The BPD argumentIn this argument Pro falls in the non sequitur fallacy. There's no rational link between the amount of women with BPD and the amount of false rape accusations. Having too "crazy" women doesn't mean that the majority of the rape accusations are false.Emotional instability "I would argue that many women nowadays are very emotionally unstable " This statement is very subjective and lacks of scientific bases, making the whole argument invalid. "Many go to extreme lengths to fabricate pieces of "evidence" to frame the accused, such as using self-inflicted wounds as proof an assault has taken place." Again, this doesn't have any factual base, is just a personal guess. Then, this is also an invalid argument.Both arguments fall in the subjectivistic fallacy, using subjective information as facts. Then, they are both invalid.The fallacy of the generalizationThe fallacy of the generalization happens when someone makes conclusions from a small "sample". For instance, if you say that all afro americans are thieves because you know three afro americans who are thieves, you are falling in this fallacy. Pro gave some examples to prove his conclusion, but they are too specific examples and aren't representative of all the "women population". This argument falls in the fallacy of generalization, thus is invalid.Guilt cultureThis is the false clue fallacy. He adds a point which seems relevant but actually doesn't prove his point. I agree that the legal system of the US is very harsh against the accused, but this doesn't prove that women make false accusations of rape.The exceptional means argumentAnother set of fallacies. "The first and third reasons as to why an "exceptional means" would be invoked are extremely rare and can be discounted when looking at the bigger picture"This is another subjective guess, another fallacy."women choose not to cooperate with police in order to pursue a verdict constitute the bulk of these said cases"Subjective again. There is an alternative. Women may choose not to participate in the trial process in order to avoid the humiliation that it means.Fallacy!!ConclusionAs you can observe, all of Pro's arguments are fallacies. This means that the whole argument is invalid. Ergo, the resolution is negated.All the fallacies information was extracted from the Anthony Weston's book "A Rulebook for arguments"
Almost half of all rape accusations are false.

Round 1. Acceptance Round 2-4. Presenting arguments and rebuttals. Round 5. Closing argument with no rebuttals. I believe that there is now mounting evidence which suggest that rape is not only lied about but lied about for the most trivial of reasons. In-depth studies by independent judges and prosecutors conclusively show that reported rapes to the police are fraught with false claims, very much more so than reports of other crimes, and we have cases over and again of women lying about rape and getting away with it either completely scot-free or with little to no consequences. I will also argue that the definition of rape has been diluted to the point where many males are being falsely convicted as a result of a societal push to "protect" women from what is purported to be an epidemic of rape or "rape culture" which from the start was bound and determined to put more men at risk for being at the mercy of vindictive, borderline/bipolar women, or other types of women prone to using the legal system as a leverage against men for all kinds of reasons you will be shocked to hear about over the course of this debate. This is a short prelude of what the debate will be about. I expect my opponent not to use any shaming tactics or ad-hominem attacks against me personally in which case I will urge voters to take this into consideration when casting your vote. We look at facts and we'll try to draw empirical and reasonable conclusions from them. If you for whatever reason take offense and as a result don't believe you can stay 100% real and rational over the course of this debate, don't accept. I'm looking forward to an objective delve into this complex and controversial topic and good luck to my opponent.
Britain should not be apologetic about it's history.

Format: 1st Round: Challenge and Introduction 2nd Round: Argument 3rd Round: Argument and rebuttal. I will bear the burden of evidense in this debate. I believe that what once was a proud, civilized nation, has become a servile, sycophantic minority pleaser. Our politician's are spineless, our current political system is a farce, and we are brought up to believe that we should not be proud of our history. My challenge today is that I believe that Britain should not be apologetic to minorities, the United state's and former colonies due to our history. We should not feel shame for the African slave trade, or the conquest of India, because the good deffinitely out-weigh's the negative. We should be proud of our history, our politician's should be honored that they have a chance to lead our country, not to be humble to other power's. What ever happened to the British bulldog? I can't see one politican in Westminster that would stand up for Britain like Churchill did.
Britain should not be apologetic about it's history.

A forfeit is always disappointing, especially from the instigator of a debate, but I understand that things come up sometimes. It's a shame my opponent didn't make his apologies in the debate itself, rather than the comments section, as this would have meant the debate would still show up on the front page. I think Pro is very misguided to think that the slaughter of innocent people is a fair price to pay for industrial and diplomatic achievements, as his claim that British people should overall be proud of the British Empire suggests. I think it is appropriate and admirable to apologise and take responsibility for past errors. If the government murdered or enslaved my family, I would certainly appreciate a humble apology more than arrogant boasting about the good things achieved in the process of the atrocity. Thanks to my opponent and anyone reading. Con.
Is Xtianity just another example of idol worship

I shall copy and paste what you wrote and respond so we sit on the same page. C/P: You do not Define what an idol is or not, Then you automatically jumped to the conclusion and focused on the name of God as if it is irrelevant to the topic of the debate. Avoda Zara: badly translated in the biblical trash as idolatry, Has many more faces than idol worship. A idol being a 3 dimensional object. Xtians require a physical jesus son of Zeus. C/P: You accuse me or not knowing the name of God implying that that makes me some type of Idol worshipper. Most definitely. All Xtians by definition never accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and they worship a false messiah - jesus son of Zeus. C/P: For convenience sake I will let you know what the name of God is, It is Yahweh. HaHaHa no Jew ever called out to this foreign alien god you call Yahweh. Calling upon a foreign alien God defines avoda zarah/strange worship. C/P: conclusion that I therefore I'm an idol worshipper or worship an idol because I don't know what the name of God is. Exactly so! Your own words and writings prove my point that Xtianity: just another example of idol worship. C/P: you have failed to Define what is idolatry and what is not idolatry. 1. The Torah commands: do not follow the ways of Egypt and Canaan. The interpretation of this commandment: do not assimilate to the culture and customs which foreign aliens who never accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai worship their gods. The Torah commands: make no physical comparison of anything in the heavens, Earth or seas unto the God of Israel. Xtianity compares father/son to the God of Israel. What does the Torah mean when Moshe commanded Par'o, Israel is my first born son? The idea of first born refers to the Cohen/priest. The Torah refers to Israel as the nation of Cohonim/priests. You do not know what the word tuma means. A cohen can not do service to the God of my people [you have no portion with the Jewish people] while being in a state of tuma. Inversely, You likewise do not know what the term tohor means either. C/P: Letruo Went to biblestudytools. Com and received: Oops! It looks like we couldn't find any matching Letruo. Try refining your search terms. So you communicated a nonesense term which has no obvious meaning. Hence no sense attempting to respond to! @# B #$% word noise.
Is Xtianity just another example of idol worship

I would like to point out your major flaws and this round as usual. You do not Define what an idol is or not, Then you automatically jumped to the conclusion and focused on the name of God as if it is irrelevant to the topic of the debate. You accuse me or not knowing the name of God implying that that makes me some type of Idol worshipper. But that argument fails because you have failed to Define an exhibit that you yourself know and understand what the name of God is. For convenience sake I will let you know what the name of God is, It is Yahweh. Number two, You have ended up with a silly in fallacious, Drunken conclusion that I therefore I'm an idol worshipper or worship an idol because I don't know what the name of God is. And as a false assumption in which you have provided zero evidence because you have failed to Define what is idolatry and what is not idolatry, So sorry but you lost on that point too. On the contrary, The Old Testament to find a Dollar Tree as as giving Letruo to anyone other than the God of the Bible. Letruo can be given in many forms - praise, Worship, Giving thanks, Remembering, Sacrifice, Showing mercy, Obedience, . Etc. With then definition given, I would like to point out that Christianity teaches that God Alone is worthy of this Letruo, And that is EXACTLY who we give it too. So your conclusion is miserably incorrect. If you wish to score some points and make this some kind of meaningful argument then you are going to have to provide some evidence to show Christianity teaches Letruo should be given someone/something other than God. You or not doing too bad but keep in mind you are still getting smoked in this debate. I look forward to next round, God bless!
Is Xtianity just another example of idol worship

The God of the Bible - a Greek mythical God. The Bible translation never once calls upon the Name of the God of Israel. You, For the most obvious example, Do not know the Name. How to call upon this Name you have not the least bit of a clue. And this fact does not concern you in the least. How do I know, With absolute and total confidence, That you do not know how to call upon the God of Israel? No Goy, In any generation, From the revelation of the Torah at Sinai to this very moment, Has ever accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai. You are a Goy. Therefore you do not know the Name or how to call upon this Name. Goyim worship foreign alien Gods. You are a Goy. Therefore you worship foreign alien Gods.
American Involvement in wars

Thanks for starting this debate, and may we both learn. I honestly have little clue where to begin with all the incursions the United States has been in and how general the subject of war is in the past, present, and future so I'll probably mention all in various ways. Nowadays our economy is doing better than ever and not thanks to any war efforts[1], in fact these small skirmishes may never be worth the risk again. In terms of nuclear risk, I strongly believe if the risk of nuclear annihilation is 0.01% it's already not worth it regardless of other circumstances such as potential debt increase, oil increases, and casualties. Aside from this, we all know of the tragic events that occurred on 9/11. What might not be common knowledge are the incursions in the middle east that caused the hatred, had we not interfered Bin Laden wouldn't have targeted us in a revenge attack. One fast facts about bin Laden: [2] Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, US troops arrive in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden is reportedly outraged at their presence, and soon begins to target the United States for its presence on Saudi soil near the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina. This certainly wasn't our only engagement with him throughout war in the middle east but it was the beginning. Simply put our engagements in war are not self-defensive as they must be in today's day and age. To quote Einstein "I know not with what weapons ww3 will be fought but ww4 will be fought with sticks & stones" These petty fights we've found ourselves in have already nearly led to something much worse than casualties but rather mutually assured destruction of Russia and the United States. One such incident under Lyndon Johnson was when Joint Chiefs were willing to risk nuclear war for Vietnam.[3] As a proud American I am displeased with just how close we've been to provoking a possible nuclear war with Russia. Even recently then-candidate Hillary Clinton threw caution to the wind with no fly zone plans in Syria which threatened to spark US-Russia conflict. [4] In addition any economic benefits has come at a heavy blood price, however if is very hard to tell if they aided the us economically whatsoever. While the great depression certainly ended during world war 2 is it hard to tell if the war is the cause and varying arguments have been made on this. [5] However, I understand that some beneficial land grabs have been made which in my opinion have been the most redeeming wars, yet our greatest land grabs were purchases. Needless to say almost all land grabs have come at the expense of the natives who one could argue lived a happier and simpler life, but that's long ago and little was recorded so I won't be making that argument. Also great risks were assumed in these land grabs, The war of 1812 began with an attempted land grab towards Canada. The attack failed, and they hit us back HARD. They quite literally burned down the White House. [6] [1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] https://www.cnn.com... [3]http://nationalinterest.org... [4]https://www.theguardian.com... [5]https://www.theatlantic.com... [6]http://www.history.com...
American Involvement in wars

Since the founding of America we have fought wars and most of those wars we have fought abroad. These wars are risking but at the end of the day these war spur the American economy and benefit everyone financially. In fact war brought our economy out of the Great Depression and got our economy back on track after the market crashed. Another reason we need to fight in wars is because if we choose when we join we can keep the wars abroad instead of on American soil. We need to do this because we can protect American people and American infrastructure. For people who remember the September eleventh attacks we know the importance of keeping the wars abroad to protect our nation from the evils we are fighting so the evil doest"t come and hurt us here at home. If we stay away from these fights we leave ourselves open to attack, sometimes the best defense is a good offense meaning that the best way to protect our borders is to go over to the enemy and hit them where it hurts. The last thing I want to say is if we don"t go fight these wars in places like Iraq and Syria we leave their citizens exposed to the threat of tyranny and as a country I think it is immoral for us to not go help those defenseless people.
Apple is running out of Ideas

In the resolution. It says that Apple is RUNNING OUT OF IDEAS. This does not include upgrades to previous products. The Resolution is simply stating that Apple is running out of ideas for NEW AND DIFFERENT products. At this moment, Apple is not generating their OWN ideas. They are simply taking suggestions from the public and then applying their complaints into their products. Apple is not generating their own ideas. [1] As for your pocket statement, I don't know what "the pocket" is, but I can assure you that even a phone as large as the Galaxy Note 3 can fit into my pockets, and it's much larger than the iPhone 5S. REPLY: Apple is developing their new iphone, the Iphone 6. The Iphone 6 is 0.4 inches longer than the Samsung S5. The Iphone 6 is simply just a Oversized Phablet. There is NO TECHNOLOGY ADVANCE IN THE IPHONE 6. It is simply just another Iphone.
Apple is running out of Ideas

While the Apple under Tim Cook isn't as "revolutionary" as the Apple under Steve Jobs, to say that Apple is running out of ideas is absurd. Your first point states that the iPhone gets longer every year. The only time to iPhone has changed it's design was with the iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, and iPhone 5. The 5S is identical to the 5 in length, width, and thickness. The only major change in screen size occurred with the iPhone 5 where Apple went from a 3.5 inch screen to a 4 inch screen. As for your pocket statement, I don't know what "the pocket" is, but I can assure you that even a phone as large as the Galaxy Note 3 can fit into my pockets, and it's much larger than the iPhone 5S. Let's look at a few items where Apple has innovated since Tim Cook took over Apple as CEO. I'd like to look at the MacBook Pro with Retina display first. Is this product crazy and revolutionizing? No, but it's set a standard for all high end laptops since it's release. Now it's common to see laptops with high dpi screens as it's become a new standard in the world of high end notebooks (much like Apple did when it released the iPhone 4 and pushed handheld devices to have very sharp displays). We can look at Apple's Late 2013 Mac Pro. Even if you favor building your own machine and having as much future upgradability as possible, one still must admire the engineering skill used to develop such a compact, high powered, professional grade desktop. I also ask that you look at software developments Apple has put forth recently, most notably the integration between iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite. The continuity feature alone is amazing from a productivity standpoint. The final thing I ask you to look at isn't so much a consumer "product" as something developers will take advantage of to make iOS and OS X programs more native to there platforms; Swift. Apple's "new" programing language takes some of the complications of Objective C and C and simplifies programing. It's so easy, someone was able to clone flappy bird in a few hours. While Apple may not be pouring with new things that change the industry as much as the iPod, iPhone, or iPad, but they are still on a forefront when it comes to setting standards within the world of high end tech. Apple's began to focus less on hardware and more on user experience, and that by no means is a sign of running out of ideas, but rather a change in direction for what's important to Apple. Sources http://www.pcmag.com... http://www.apple.com... https://developer.apple.com...
Apple is running out of Ideas

Apple IS running out of ideas and I will prove this to you. First, I would like to consider the Iphone 5S. The height of the Iphone 5S is 4.87 inches. It is seen that every model of Iphone gets longer and longer. Any phone longer than 4.87 inches will not fit into the pocket. Apple has also created other products like the Ipod, Ipad, and Mac, but will they have more ideas? My answer simply is NO. http://www.apple.com... http://www.forbes.com...
United States should denounce the United Nations

Sorry I am late; I've had much to attend to. I see my opponent has his argument set. It took me some time to get some things together. And I wish him luck. ===1.The United Nations is looked towards as a source of solving major problematic crises in the world. The most notable of these crises is the Rwandan Genocide, which shall always be known as the UN's biggest blunder. The entire event was proof of inaction on the UN's part, letting over 800,000 become victims. "In 1994, the United Nations was warned of the Rwandan Hutu chauvinist government's impending genocide against the Tutsi minority and anti-tribalist Hutus three months before it began in April — yet ordered its "peacekeepers" in the country to do nothing. Almost 1 million Rwandans were slaughtered in the subsequent three months."http://www.greenleft.org.au...In places like Congo and Kosovo, where major atrocities were committed, Peacekeeping forces working on behalf of the UN to keep the places stabilised are accused of abusing the people they are suppsed to be protecting... http://www.csmonitor.com...2.Many of its members are dictatorials or asolute monarchs that would love nothing more than to solidify their positions in the world - and what better way to do that than by joining the UN. It's even easy for them to win seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council UNHRC). Such nations in the UNHRC include: Cuba Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Zimbabwe Egypt Jordan The entire organization has pretty much become a safe haven for despot, anti-democratic rulers to stay in power. In addition to this it's pretty much easy for any member to block condemnation against their allies, especially when it comes to situations like genocide and ethnic cleansings... http://www.newzimbabwe.com...3. A major situation in the United Nations has been with human rights. You have nations that are basically at an all time low in human rights standards, and yet they are allowed a place in the UN. It has done questionable things in the past, like elect Libya as chair of the Commission of Human Rights... http://www.guardian.co.uk... ===Now, Con says he'll tell us about the historical significence the UN has. I know full well about it, its role following World War II, and its role during the Cold War. But let's face it...the UN is paralyzed, and it can rarely do any good for the world nowadays that can benefit us in the long run. I think denouncing the United Nations and forming our own global forum where we ensure our interests in democracy would be a better option for the United States I end my argument and send it to Con.
United States should denounce the United Nations

I accept this challenge. I do not think you understand the significance for the United Nation, both historically and politically. In the next round of debate, I shall seek to prove that as a result of the UN, more co-operation has resulted between states (warring, to neutral, to allies). Furthermore, I shall draw you into history with the Iraq War and the impact the UN has had upon that war. Finally I will show -with this evidence- that it would simply be blatant incompetence to simply withdraw from the UN because of it's many benefits.
Two plus two equals four.

2 + 2 doesn't necessarily have to equal anything. Just how we perceive it and process it in our cognitive psyche is that of a mathematics problem because we were trained to it that way at a very young age. So technically we are indoctrinated to perceive it that way. But it doesn't mean it equals four. For example when people see a car in a parking spot they immediately think it's drivable. Well that's not always the case. Cars can just be. They don't have to be driven. Same with math problems.