BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women make better politicians than men.

Honestly, it is my first debate, so it is a little bit difficult for me. I didn't know how to start the debate, as a result I wrote it in this way. By reading your answer, I realized my fault, so thank you for that))) I will try to continue our debate by using arguments. First, as leading psychologists William James, William McDougall, and G. Stanley Hall claimed (1), "women have a special need and ability to protect and care for others". It means female worry and care about people, moreover, they are more responsible than men. So women-politicians can make decision that beneficial for others, help children and old people, also do things to improve the country. Secondly, according to Debra Burrell, a psychological social worker and regional training director of the Mars-Venus Institute in New York, most women of women managers tend to have more of a desire to build than a desire to win and also women are more willing to explore compromise and seek other people's opinions. (2) Women able to listen others and create world with out war, that means they can make better politicians and do things for sake of people. Third, as Carol Smith, the senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, illustrates, female managers are more collaborative and democratic than male managers. Also, she claimed that women use a more positive approach by encouraging and urging others rather than a negative approach of scolding and reprimanding them. Also, women attend more to the individuals they work with, by mentoring them and taking their particular situations into account. (3) Moreover, the Daily Beast reports on a new study that shows female politicians are among the most productive and persuasive ones in the country. This research in the American Journal of Political Science is the first to compare the performance of male and female politicians. It shows women do a better job at securing pork for their home districts and shaping policy.(4) As an example, there are powerful women leaders all over the world serving effectively in their respective fields and most of them are politicians. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor is the best example. She heads Europe's most vibrant economy and is widely viewed as the de facto leader of the EU. She reigns supreme as the pre-eminent leader of the European Union. Her hold over the economic future of the eurozone (current GDP $17.9 trillion) was made crystal clear this year. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, fourth in line to the succession of the U.S. Presidency. As the world ambassador of the largest single economy on earth, Clinton has advanced U.S. interests and policies overseas while pushing women"s issues, development and education to the top of the foreign policy agenda. (5) These evidences prove that women make better politicians than men. (1) http://gem.greenwood.com... (2) http://www.siliconindia.com... (3) http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com... (4) http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com... (5) http://www.forbes.com...
Women make better politicians than men.

My refutation of Pro's case will be in two points. First, I will show that Pro's specific points lack justification or any reason to suppose they apply to woman more so than men. Second, I will show that Pro's argument makes an unwarranted conceptual leap out of a possible general trait.C1. Evidence.The first thing that comes to mind when reading Pro's argument is that he posts no sources to back up his claims. This debate isn't of a purely logical or analytical nature, it has to do with empirical claims about the real world which may or may not be verified. Since Pro can't simply justify his argument by appeal to logic, he should post sourced studies or statistics showing why his claims are true. Specifically, Pro needs sourced evidence for his claims that women: "care about everyone and every time", "are better survivors than men", "can out-think a man, every time", "are more honest and a lot more organized than men", "make way better decisions", and that they "will make their responsibilities with more professionalism and commitment". In the absence of third party empirical evidence, Pro's arguments amount to little more than conjecture.C2. Generalities and Concepts.The next problem with this argument is that it confuses mere generalities with universalized concepts. The resolution does not say that women are on balance better politicians than men or that most of the time a woman will make a better politician than a man. The claim Pro is making is that women (conceptually) are better politicians than men. This means that even if Pro is able to conjure up evidence backing up an empirical claim regarding the general political superiority of women, it wouldn't be even to make the jump to the conceptual superiority of women politically then man.
Women make better politicians than men.

Women make better politicians than men. First, women have the feeling of motherhood, love towards the country and people, this feeling always gives them support in handling politics. They care about everyone and every time. Second, women are better survivors than men. A woman can out-think a man, every time. Women are more honest and a lot more organized than men. They make way better decisions. Third, women can do a better job then men because they will make their responsibilities with more professionalism and commitment.
Women make better politicians than men.

On Pro's first point of evidence, that women have maternal instinct, there are two problems. First, Pro fails to justify the jump from "women have a special need....to protect and care for others" to "women are more responsible than men". The resolution posits that women are better qualified as politicians than men, therefore Pro either has to state why maternal instincts make women better than men, or any reason why this point means superiority on the part of women. On the contrary, Pro fails to realize that masculine traits also contribute to positive governing traits such as the provision of resources and protection of territory[1]. Pro has yet to show superiority.On Pro's second point of evidence, that women are "able to listen and create world with out war", clear counter examples can easily refute this. On the resolution passed which authorized armed force against Iraq, Heather Wilson (NM), Karen Thurman (FL), Ellen Tauscher (CA), Deborah Pryce (OH), Judith Biggert (IL), etc. etc. etc. all voted in favor. Condoleezza Rice approved of water boarding torture techniques[2]. Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also voiced support of unmanned drone killings[3]. Obviously, support for war and war-related activities is not an exclusively male trait.Pro's third contention only pertains to workplace management, not with governance. Also, Pro's fourth piece of evidence fails to actually prove qualitative superiority. The article Pro links to claims that "From 1984 to 2004, women politicians won about $50 million more a year for their districts than men did." However, seeing as the U.S. is currently harboring a large budget deficit, proving that one group of people is better at spending money than another fails to actually count as a superior political trait. Pro's fifth point also fails to establish superiority. Furthermore, the fact that most world leaders are men successfully counters this point. Why would this prove female superiority?===Sources===[1] http://psychologyofmen.org... ("(1) Provider: Secure and provide resources (2) Protector: Defend others and territory")[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[3] http://www.reuters.com...
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of forced fear

Please give reliable sources and evidence for your claims. You obviously haven't done any research on the topic that you're passionate about. Of course I am against terrorism, murder, and pedophilia, but at least I know that not all Muslims are evil. Not all Muslims have done those things. The stereotype is that Muslims are terrorists, but that stereotype isn't true. According to a study between a 25-year-period, only 6% of total terrorist attacks in the U.S. were committed by Muslims. Only 6%. The other 94% were perpetrated by Latino-related groups, extreme left-wing groups, and more. The EU's law enforcement agency said that less than 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe from a four-year-period were religiously motivated. (However, I don't think that means that the entire 2 percent are Muslims.) In addition, a Gallup poll showed that 93% of Muslims do not support views of terrorism. Islam is not forced terrorism. In the Quran, it is said, "Whoever kills one person, kills all mankind, whoever saves one person, saves all of mankind" (5:32). It is also in there that they can fight in self-defense. Besides, Muhammad does not call for his followers to spread hatred or violence. https://www.rappler.com... https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of forced fear

muslims are everywhere.. so muslims cant unsubmit to their god, fear.. like the chance of being honor killed for eksample islam is not a religion, its forced terrorism.. and there is nothing respektable about islam.. you should hate yourself for every have entertained that thought even for a few seconds if muslim dont need to be banned i guess we should make terrorism legal.. and murder.. and pedophilia.. ai you fuckingg scum of the earth.. all muslims are terrorists.. your brain has decayed
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of forced fear

Islam is not forced in all places. There are many who are proud of their religion. I'm not a Muslim, but you should respect the religion. People are different and that's what makes us humans unique. Muslims don't need to be banned. You may think that all Muslims hold the same views, but that is not true. Within the Islam religion there are different sects with different beliefs. Besides, many Muslims are kind and most don't support terrorism.
is neymar jr better than messi

Contrary to rumour and popular belief, Lionel Messi did NOT sign his first Barcelona contract on a napkin. It reads: In Barcelona on 14 December 2000 in the presence of Messrs Minguella and Horacio Carles Rexach, technical director of FCB, commits to the signing, regardless of some opinions to the contrary of Lionel Messi, as long as the figures previously agreed are respected. The real story, is that then Barcelona Technical Director Charly Rexach was pushed into making a decision by other coaching staff on that particular day. The Messis had been flown over from Argentina for two weeks, making Lionel miss school, and had waited months to hear back from the club. To stop the Messi family worrying about his future, Rexach signed the only bit of paper he could find in the restaurant he was in at the time. Bringing a 13 year old over from as far away as Argentina was unheard of and the costs involved, namely for Messi"s medical treatments, housing, and getting Jorge (his father) employment were substantially more than clubs would usually pay. He scored two penalties in the final and was voted player of the tournament and won the golden boot in 2005 U-20 World Cup Final. "Messi is indisputably the greatest player ever to don a pair of football boots. Don't even attempt to argue the point." Gary Lineker. http://babb.telegraph.co.uk...
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

I think we should have the commenters tell us is a move is KO, a death, or neither. People will respond and it will be reliable. I hop on my Rayquaza's back and he uses dragon pulse to eliminate all the fake Gyarados. My Dragonite flies above your pokemon in pursuit and uses the move rain. My Elektross, after the raining has started, uses thunder to electrocute the water taking out any possible Gyrados below. Your move. (Tell me where I hit the Gyarados and we will rate damage accordingly.)
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

No, I believe you are mistaken. The battleground is the whole arena, not just the islands. We begin on an island each. You see my Gyarados use Double Team, creating nine illusions. Two of them head straight up, three underwater, two make for the beach, and two go straight for you. Their fangs glow as they fly toward you. My Greninja and I get up onto my Arcanine and use Agility to break for the beach. My Greninja throws up a shield around us to protect our escape. Oh, and one more thing. Do you think that we should ask the comments to tell us if a move is a KO, a death, or neither? Do you think anyone would respond and/or be reliable?
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

Imagining Pokemon to be real, you would have to imagine a way to defeat my team of three Pokemon while avoiding being incapacitated yourself. ----------NO TIME TRAVEL----------- The battleground would be a ranged, restricted to a forest, a beach, and ocean, 200 square meters of each (656 feet), with 20 meter (65.6 foot) cliffs on either side of the beach and two 5 meter (16 foot) island in the water. Your goal would be to protect yourself while incapacitating me and my team of three Pokemon. Nonetheless, you cannot kill me or my Pokemon. You are the "hero" and must follow these rules. I do not have this restriction. To counter this, you may choose up to one legendary, while I choose none. All Pokemon are the same level, with four moves that they can learn according to the games. You may confine any or all of your Pokemon to their pokeballs when convenient. One mega stone may be used. You must state your three Pokemon as I would see them, species only. My Pokemon are: Greninja Gyarados Arcanine
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

As Rayquaza flies up, my Greninja once again uses the same combo to hit Rayquaza with an Ice Beam. He keeps it focused until it hits (Realistically, by the beam and Rayquaza's size, about a second or two). I immediately recall him when it hits. I release him into the forest, and he fires an Ice Beam at your Eelektross (No OHKO). Not stopping to see if it hits, he dodges away into the forest while I speed out of the trees onto the beach, and then up the cliffside. Halfway up, I send out Gyarados, who Mega Evolves and hovers around me as I climb on my third Pokemon. Shall we continue in a new debate? I'll challenge you.
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

Rayquaza uses protect before the ice beam hits him. We fly higher and out of sight. My Elektross uses surf in the water to create a massive tidal wave that slams into the forest covering the entire forest. My dragonite then uses Thunder on the forest to KO all the pokemon in the forest. The forest would be filled with water and soaking so any pokemon that is in the forest is hit. All the forest is hit and 10 meters beyond the water feels the electrocution. (You can't use protect as it has already worn off or it was just for one move.) Gyrados is recalled so it's unaffected but your other two are hit no question. You also are threatened by drowning and electrocution. Your Move.
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

My Gyarados uses Protect before the Discharge hits him, and I recall him as he gets to the forest. As your Rayquaza flies into range, my Greninja uses Agility to dodge the incoming damage and uses Ice Beam on your Rayquaza immediately at point blank range (100% OHKO). I then recall him to me and then release him back into the forest. He leaps from tree to tree as I also leap from tree to tree on my third Pokemon's back.
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

My Rayquaza flying dodges the shuriken. He flies toward the forest and uses outrage randomly on the trees. My dragonite lands on the forest edge and uses earthquake knocking down trees and making the ground unstable. My Elektross jumps from the water above the Gyarados and uses discharge hitting all the Gyarados in a 100 meter square radius. Any Gyrados hit would be ko'd. Your Move.
I could definitely defeat you with Pokemon.

I vanish into the trees with my two Pokemon. You see multiple water shuriken (about 15-20) shoot out of the trees towards you. My Gyarados was fleeing with me, so he takes a Dragon Pulse to the tail. The Gyarados (plural) in the water vanish, as do the rest, all hit by Dragon Pulse or Thunder. He uses double team once again, and the Gyarados (plural) scatter across the beach, moving constantly, trying to dodge any shots on them. Note: Are we playing with Thunder counting as a big lightning bolt, or as an attack that hits everything in the sky?
Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

Electronic cigarretes don't contain Tobacco. It was invented back in 2007 to find an alternative way for smoking regular cigarettes which contains tobacco. According to health.howstuffworks.com, some people say they feel more comforable using electronic cigarrete than regular cigarettes not only because it doesn't contain tobacco but it is also reusable. In addition, it saves them money and help them quit smoking regular cigarettes. PS. The characters aren't limit to 500.
Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

Tobacco kills. It doesn't matter how it is smoked, whether in a vapor pipe or in cigarette form, people will still get cancer and suffer a slow painful death. Who wants to live like that? Or who wants to watch their closest most loved family members, relatives or friends suffer like that? Inhaling tobacco whether electronically or old fashioned is still inhaling toxic chemicals that can be very harmful to your health. Bloomberg should ban E-Cigs altogether but especially in public places.
Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.
Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

Whether smoking a cigarette or e-cig there is still nicotine In both and nicotine is highly addictive. E cigs are not a safer alternative to cigarettes because they are just as addictive. E-cigs may only be vapor but it is not undetectable. That wretched nicotine smell will linger on your clothes and in your hair. The smoke and vapor is bound to offend someone and I would not like to be sitting out at dinner and have someone blow their e-cigarette vapor in my face or be sitting on the subway next to someone puffing an e-cig having to inhale second hand smoke in an air tight location. E cigs should be banned in closed public spaces and away from those who may find them offensive.
Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

Electronic cigarette is not subjected to U.S tobacco laws because it doesn't have any tobacco in it. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are better than regular cigarettes. In terms of accessibility among minors, they are able to purchase regular cigarettes which is actually violating a law as to purchasing electronic cigarettes. Another reason why smoking electronic cigarette is better than regular cigarettes is because there is no combustion involved while smoking it. There is no smoke coming out of the cigarette, instead there's a vapor that provides similar sensation as smoking traditional cigarettes. This is one of many great innovations we have in our modern time. The mayor shouldn't ban something useful as to alternating smoking cigar.
Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs

It has not yet been concluded that E-cigs help people quit smoking. Theres no proof E-cigs have aided in quitting cigarettes, it has only been proved a remedy for those who cannot quit cigarettes. Also according to health.howstuffworks.com Because they contain no tobacco, e-cigarettes aren't subject to U.S. tobacco laws, which means they can be purchased without proof of age, especially online which is dangerous for our children. No laws make buying these e-cigs easily accessible and when smoking is started at a young age they are hooked and prone to all the diseases and cancers caused by cigs. these devices should be deemed illegal until the proper research trials have been conducted. Teacher also made it clear to limit 750characters
The Unites States is not a Christain Nation

Acceptance:I thank Peepette for hositng this debate. I understand that I will be attempting to prove that the United States is a Christian nation.Opening Statement:The United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This provides for the free exercise of religion, and it stipulates that congress cannot establish a national religion.Also, each of the 13 Original Colonies had some form of state-supported religion relating to the Christian Faith.The Supreme Court, in cases from the gaining of independence until 1947, ruled in favor of Christianity.The Declaration of Independence references God and His authority circa 40 times. The Declaration of Independence is the national charter for the United States of America. A charter, such as one for a company, provides the base values of the established institution. Followwing this charter is a set of rules; basically, the Law. The Constitution of the United States of America is that set of rules, which are based on the charter.Abbreviations:After this round, I shall henceforth abbreviate "Supreme Court" as SC.After this round, I shall henceforth abbreviate "First Amendment" as FA.The First Amendment:Due to the nature of the debate, I will provide the complete text of the First Amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."I look forward to a good, intellectual debate.And so continues the Assault on Reason.
The Unites States is not a Christain Nation

Rules: No kritiks, semantics, trolling or forfeitsCitations in text of debateR1 Acceptance with opening statementsDefinitions: Christian: A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.Constitution, United States: A document that embodies the fundamental laws and principles by which the United States is governed.The United States was not founded as a Christian nation. In light of how the early Puritan settlers established Christian Commonwealths in the early colonies, the founding fathers were acutely aware that a religious state was a problematic notion. They were also mindful of constitutional monarchies and state church relations which were the basis of governments in several European countries of the time. As a result, nowhere in the Constitution does the word God appear, and explicitly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" an intentional creation a secular state.
That we should not target children in advertisements

Hey guys! This will be a 4-round debate, where the 1st round is just detailed by the Con 'accepting' the debate. I will be debating the Pro side :) 2nd Round is where Aff states the case and the conclusion will be in the 4th round (a.k.a the third speaker of a 3v3 debate). Good luck, and have fun! EDIT: for clarification purposes it is a 1v1 debate!!