BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The gender wage gap in the US is mostly because of discrimination.

Women do not make statistically significant less than men when comparing apples to apples (e.g. amount of time at current position, strength of company, education and work history, etc.); however, they are often passed up for employment and promotions based on sexual discrimination. The sexual discrimination being that men work, and women stay home. This hinders their ability, perceived and otherwise, to make more money in the sense of getting more hours and promotions, thus they are relegated to the lower income jobs. The most notable example of this is men walking out on women, who then must be limit their availability to take care of their children, which naturally inhibits are promotion to a salaried position. If one were to look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you can clearly see that women work in low paying jobs much more than men almost 2:1. The likely reason, they are duty-bound to their children and homes. http://www.bls.gov... http://www.bls.gov...
animal protection

Awareness of our environment and the organisms that inhabit it is not only requisite of basic senses but also of deeper levels of intellect and I will very much enjoy discussing this topic. Secondly I would like to clarify my position on the motion, as it is loosley defined. I am on the proponent side of the idea of alternate species "protection" or "advanced ethics. " Promoting the idea of sentiment towards other organisms that are not Human. If this is incorrect please inform me otherwise, however the following will be based on that mindset. With our current knowledge of evolution and the concept of pain I propose that "Animals" (those being both Human and otherwise) should be afforded certain ethical rights following our conciet of the idea of suffering. It is vitally important that we recognize our relationship with other organisms citing biological evolution to form rational procedures for interacting with and managing the suffering of animals. With our knowledge of how the neural system works in regards to the sense of pain we can deduce that other animals also have this sense and that other animals can indeed suffer. It is within reason to conclude that the reduction of this suffering is in our best interests.
Exams are an unfair way of assessing the abilities of students in GCSEs

Since my opponent has posted no counter arguments, I have no points to refute. I can assume they either concede the debate or wish to continue it in a separate debate. If my opponent chooses to post an argument in this round, I request a second debate in order to make rebuttals. If, however, my opponent has yielded, I request that they post "concession" so the debate can be over as soon as possible.
Exams are an unfair way of assessing the abilities of students in GCSEs

Firstly, written exams only assess one facet of a student's ability in any given subject: writing. For example, there might be a student who is incredibly knowledgeable on the subject of science, but finds it difficult to articulate themselves when writing an extended answer. If, instead, a member of the exam board had a conversation with the student, or just asked them a few questions verbally, this would eliminate those "silly mistakes" that students who are otherwise perfectly capable make during written exams.Secondly, exams are a luck based system. A student may be incredibly good at answering questions about evolution in a biology exam, but not so good when it comes to,say, the reflex arc. Since a large portion of marks in a biology paper is allocated to each topic in the paper, if, by chance, there is a large section on evolution, the examinee will score high on the test. If, however, there is a large section on the reflex arc instead of evolution, the student may lose a significant amount of marks. In my experience, this can be the difference between getting an A or an A*. I have seen exams where students just happened to get all of the questions they were good at, and walk away with an A*, similarly, I have seen students get a series of question they were not so good at, and walk away with a B, even though they were just as good at the subject as the A* student. This kind of luck based assessing could be eliminated if, as I earlier proposed, examiners had a conversation with the students about whatever topic they are being assessed on.Thirdly, the way exams are marked is by taking all the marks in that particular academic year, and allocating grade boundaries to percentiles. This is an unfair system, as in any given year, there ma be a large percentage of smarter people, which would make the grade boundaries extend to a point where it is much harder to get an A*, even though in any other year a large number of the students could easily attain one. Similarly, if there is a large influx of less able children, the bar will be lowered, making it easier to score high marks. How is it fair that students from one year will get an A* even though in a different year they would get a B, and how is it fair that students from one year will get a B, even though in another they would get an A*.To clarify, I don't want to get rid of written exams, just make the criteria for a final grade more diverse than just written work.
Exams are an unfair way of assessing the abilities of students in GCSEs

I will be arguing from the position that GCSE students are being dealt a poor hand by exam boards, as exams are an unfair way of assessing a student's knowledge and ability regarding any particular subject, and other methods of assessment should be used in addition to written exams. For those of you who live outside the UK, GCSEs are the qualification received by high school students after 2 years of study at the end of their school career in year 10 & 11 (9th grade and 10th grade in America I think). Students normally take about 8-11 of them, depending on individual ability. GCSE stands for General Certificate of Secondary Education. My opponent would preferably have participated in GCSE studies in the UK, as that is the perspective I am arguing from.
Is DATD a good rule

.. 1. First you said that the militarys structure doesn't have room for much change or diversity we have changed the militarys structure women could only be nurses minorities could only be low ranks, and the military has a lot of diversity it has latinos,african-americans,asians,caucasian,men,women and people of all religons,homosexuals would just add to the list . Second since when do we have to wait for society to unanimously accept a group of people to give them equal rights we didn't with African Americans and we didn't with women (there still are some sexists and racists out their so we still don't unamiously accept them). Society isn't homophobic a poll shows that 56% are against DADT and only 37% support it and those people who fall under the 37% aren't all homophobic they support DADT for different reasons so our society doesn't need to slowly move towards accepting gays because a large majority does. 2. George TIller preformed several 2nd and 3rd term abortions so pro life extremists saw him as a murderer,that was taken more seriously than DADT. I live in New Mexico a state that has a large part of its population from Texas one of the most conservative states in the country. When the bill to allow Civil Unions was voted on in congress most people were against it but the congress passed it anyway. Their weren't huge riots or major protests people just held up picket signs for a few days affter the vote and then they got over it the same thing would happen with DADT. 3. The people that feel most strongly about this issue are the people against DADT if we changed it(which is what most americans want) a very small group of people would protest tensions would not be that strong and there wouldn't be much culture shock since DADT didn't exist before 1993 DADT Polls . http://www.quinnipiac.edu...
Is it okay for me top wear a bra? (PS. I'm a dude)

Well it appears as though Con's account has been deactivated. I guess this means I win by default. Oh, well. At least I learned something from this debate. One, don't trust the new "circle" accounts. Two, the definition of "weirdo". I had always assumed it was a synonym to "strange". Which it kinda is. Good to know.
Is it okay for me top wear a bra? (PS. I'm a dude)

I am assuming that Pro, myself, am for the statement "It is ok for Con, a male, to wear a bra". - Definitions: The online urban dictionary's definition of "weirdo" is: A person who is considered strange to other people. This person may do strange things, so this person can be considered a "weirdo". The online Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines "strange" as: Different from what is usual, normal, or expected. - Rebuttal: A man wearing a bra is "strange". It meets all requirements from the definition; it is different from what is usual, it is not considered "normal", and it is definitely unexpected. A "weirdo" does strange things. Thus it isn't unexpected for a male "weirdo" to wear a bra, which is an act that is considered "strange". By this we see that Con defense of; "I'm a weirdo so no!" does not stand. As a male "weirdo" wearing a bra would actually be something that could be expected of him. - Argument: Why would it not be ok for a boy, Con, to wear a bra? It does not break any laws in "free" countries like the US and Canada. Thus it legally poses no threat to the Con to wear a bra. It may not be considered "normal" or "average" by the public but this does not mean it can not be done or should not be done. It is perfectly ok for Con to have cross-dressing hobbies. Sources: - www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange - www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weirdo - My common sense. :P
There should be only one black family per neighborhood

A long time ago there was a name of Labadoozie, And he made a big thing. It was a people. You see, These people, They are-a made of three races. Tha whites, Asians, And tha blacks. Now you see, They hated each other, And killed each other for land, And just plain murderin'. But, I have come to the conclusion that there is two worlds, But one can find Biological things and see clearly, But the other can't and must heed the warnings of Charles Edwith, Circa 1715. ~You say the Black people do nothing but smoke, Join gangs, And make dumb rap songs, Eat chicken, And eat watermelon! But the thing is, The Communists can fix this. We can send them to gulags to work, And we can send the bad whites as well. Now you see, We are very smart men, Because Asians, Are after all, To be found of it. Now, You also say their skin is absorbing the sun. But the white people, They are white, They don't need the sun, As they will get cancer and die. You also say that they can't be educated and/or have speech impediments. If they can't be educated, Isn't that bad for our side? Because America is already a dumb nation, As proven by this debate Bob Barker, On his show. Now you also say that there is one black family per neighborhood. But this neighborhood will be overrun by whites! Whites are the ones who recite the lyrics of your dumb song, Play fortnite, And drink mountain dew. The solution, You may ask about, Is right here. ASIANS! Yes, We shall turn America into Asia #2, Therefore people will be smarter, And they won't be as fat! Also, We can incorporate communism into the mix as well! You also say they have to pay 1000 every day. Well, If some Blacks are poor, They will have to live in the streets, And then you know what happens? The streets will be full of Blacks, Which is the opposite of what you're trying to go for. If they are also denied welfare, Again, They will live on the streets, And die, If they aren't giving food stamps. This isn't good, As the streets will, Again, Be full of black people, But worse, Because they are rotten and dying black people. If they are hated, Then people won't like it that they are on the streets, And riots will begin at the white house, With Donald Trump having sex with a donkey, And eating a potato monkey! As I conclude this, I conclude that the Kookan Lands are gay, And I win?
There should be only one black family per neighborhood

Black people do nothing but commit crime, Smoke weed, Join gangs, Make degenerate garbage rap songs, Eat chicken, And eat watermelon. The fat black niggers are the worst ones. They do nothing good for society; always sitting on their couches all day, Eating chicken, Eating watermelon, Collecting food stamps, And abusing welfare. Their skin is absorbing the sun too much, Which leaves no room for the white people. Also, They can't be educated and/or have speech impediments, Which is further proof that they can't function well in society. That being said, The one black family who decides to move in a neighborhood will be treated harshly. They will have to pay $1, 000 every day, And they will be denied welfare and food stamps. They will also be the most hated people in the neighborhood. RULES 1. Don't sling sh! T. 2. OOH OOH AHH AHH is not an argument. 3. Code switch into the normal English language for this debate. Don't be like "AW HELL NAW, WE WUZ KANGS AN SHIEEEET" or whatever it is you people say. 4. Be civil like a normal white person.
The existence of God

God - a superior being responsible for the formation of our universe Rules- 1.) No trolling 2.) No K's 3.) No forfeits 4.) Keep it respectable and civil 5.) No new arguments in the last round 6.) Focus on the topic Failure to follow these rules will result in the automatic loss of my opponent Structure- R1 - Acceptance only R2 - Each side presents their claims R3 - Rebuttal R4 - Closing Arguments Pro will have to provide proof/evidence that God exists I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting the debate and hopefully everyone reading/participating will keep an open mind
Humans Do Not Have the Right to Water

Wow. Just... wow. Anyway...1. Right v. EntitlementThe main issue here is my partner is mistaking "Right" for "Entitlement".Right - A just claim.Entitlement - The right to guaranteed benefits under a government program.(Random House Dictionary, 2013)My opponent is trying to say that people are not entitled to water, which claim has some validity. However, people are right to have water.Allow me to explain using the Unalienable Rights from the Social Contract Theory as an example. These rights are rights that we believe should not be taken away from any individual under any circumstances. They are, of course, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These aren't things the government provide us with, they're simply things that can't be taken away by the government.Therefore, while my opponent has proved that we aren't entitled to water, he has given no reasonable argument that we don't have the right to it.He may argue that some people don't currently have water and we don't have to give water to them simply because it is a right. However, this is again, where he should use the word "entitlement". Some people don't have life. It's not up to us to give life to the dead, we just can't take life away from the living.The unalienable right to life brings me to my second point.2. The Right To Water = The Right To LifeAccording to the Social Contract Theory, all humans have the right to live. Our own common sense tells us that we need water to live. Because we need water to live, if water is not being provided to us, then neither is our right to life.Now for this point, it may seem like I used the word "entitlement" as a substitute for the word "right", because water would have to be provided. But in this situation, with it being wrong to take away someone's life, If someone does not give them water when they have water to spare and when the person in need is dying of thirst, that person is negligently taking away one's right to live.With that, my opponent admitted that people have a right to live. An because people have the right to live, by my argument stated above, people also indirectly have the right to water....and finally, the obvious.3. My Opponent's Case is AbusiveMy partner cleverly chose not to explain what he meant by "the right to water" in the first round when clearly he displayed in the second round that he was capable of doing so.As such, I showed the capability of countering his argument. However, playing the card he played is a troll strategy used by novice debaters who so desperately need a win and will attempt to do so by tricking an opponent into thinking a debate he created would be easy.I of course would not have posted this argument if he would have simply defined the resolution in his opening statement. However, by attempting to use deception as a cheap way of winning a debate, he now only has one more argument on his hands. Moral: this strategy is counterproductive. Hope this was informative!
Humans Do Not Have the Right to Water

My argument is actually a play on words in a sense. Many people think that someone dying of thirst should be provided water by the government. If this truly is the case, certainly that person needs water! Technically, that person doesn't truly have a right to that water. To understand what I'm saying, I'll put it into this context: Citizens currently have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean that people have the right to arms from the government, or from other people, it means they have the right to own and carry arms. Many people say that people have the right to water, and by a technicality, that isn't true. On the other hand, I am all for charity, and yes you should give someone who is thirsty water. I will not force you though, and no one should be able to force you. Therefore, people don't have a right to water, they have more of a right to live in a sense. Hope this was informative!
gila monsters are not reptiles

After coming home from the Emergency Room: I have opened this debate to be appalled. My opponent has gone mad! My opponent first asserts: “I will affirm the resolution with 10 points:” My opponent need only put forth one! Evidence of a Gila Monster wearing blue suede shoes! He then rambles on… ”one: im surprised that u accepted my debate” Of course I would accept the debate. My Monster said I had too…. ”Two: im sure that some stupid owners put blue suede shoes on their gila monster” That is absurd argument! Stupid owners would never put blue suede shoes on their Monsters, they would get bit! ”three: im surprised u have a gila monster” Come to think of it…. So am I. ”four: im sorry it bit u” What… do you think I am infected too? ”five: what do u feel about george bush” How did you know my Gila Monsters name? Your not one of those stalkers trying to look at peoples Monsters are you? ”six: that last argument made no sense” What are you talking about?? ”seven: do u know what im eating for dinner” Haggis? A true Scotsman would eat Haggis. ”eight: its kinda hard making up all these arguments on the spot” What arguments? “nine: next year will be 2012 ( i think)” Are you threatening my Monster? ”ten: i dont have any more arguments” I did not see the first one? Seeing that my opponent has managed to accomplish nothing but to impeach the moral character of my Monster…. And I have positive evidence of a violent reaction from my Monster to wearing any kind of garment…. The resolution stands clearly negated.
gila monsters are not reptiles

I will affirm the resolution with 10 points: one: im surprised that u accepted my debate Two: im sure that some stupid owners put blue suede shoes on their gila monster three: im surprised u have a gila monster four: im sorry it bit u five: what do u feel about george bush six: that last argument made no sense seven: do u know what im eating for dinner eight: its kinda hard making up all these arguments on the spot nine: next year will be 2012 ( i think) ten: i dont have any more arguments
gila monsters are not reptiles

Seeing that Gila Monsters do not wear Blue Suede shoes, shows we could conclude the obvious? Unless my opponent has evidence of this silly proposition… . http://www.youtube.com... I just happen to have a pet Gila Monster and amazingly enough he seemed to shake his head a little when I played the video… Wait, he seems irate when I play the song… Damn… he… bit… me………proof…. they…hate…. blue…. suede…nnnnghh. .. .
Gay marriage SHOULD be legal in all 50 States, protected by a federal law.

May I ask two things then. 1: if it is important that procreation be the foundation for marriage, then shouldn't the government only allow couples to marry if they plan to have children? And if a woman can't have children, or a man can't, then shouldn't they not be allowed to marry? They should be given a civil union right? 2: Since this is obviously abhorrently large government talk, shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry, if it is in fact not a choice to be gay; the same way it is not a choice to be barren? You don't see a problem with taking away fundamental rights of other people that don't affect you because they can't procreate?
Gay marriage SHOULD be legal in all 50 States, protected by a federal law.

you miss the point that even if it is effectively not possible for a woman to conceive, it is still innately only possible with a man and a woman. i focus on procreation, cause it is the cornerstone of a family that has a mother and a father, which is what all children should have. polygamy isn't a choice any more than homosexuality isn't a choice. both involve innate sexual feelings. and not that whether it's natural is the rule or not, but polygamy is probably even more natural than monogomy... while granting they are all natural, some are more characteristic of the species than others.
Gay marriage SHOULD be legal in all 50 States, protected by a federal law.

My arguments stand. I will try to flesh out my points I guess, so there is something to rebut. First of all, a barren woman has NO possibility of conceiving a child. Even if WOMEN as a gender can, a barren woman CANNOT. A barren woman and a man have just as much chance conceiving as two men do. That being said, why is your definition of marriage centered around procreation? If two people have no intent on making a baby, should they not be allowed to marry? What about an asexual woman and an asexual man?Addressing your point about polygamy: the main difference I see in this argument is that polygamy is a choice, and homosexuality isn't. And before you say "well what about pedophilia? That's not a choice, so shouldn't an adult be allowed to marry a child?" This argument is also invalid because a child under a certain threshold of age does not have the wherewithal, knowledge, or experience to properly consent to a marriage. The same goes for animals.