BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Orlando Attacks were targeting LGBT people

"History-" The Orlando attacks were an attack at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida on June 26th, 2016. As of now, the death total is at 50 and the injured is at 53. The attack was committed by Omar Mateen. Of course they were targeting LGBT people, that's why Mateen attacked the club in the first place. It is completely illogical to attack an LGBT bar and then say he wasn't targeting them. That's like saying the 9/11 attackers weren't attacking Americans. It makes no sense. Under Islamic law, being gay is a crime. Omar was obviously involved in Islam and is in some way associated with ISIS. Some extremists believe the gays should be stoned to death. Looking at that, it's obvious that Mateen didn't like LGBT people. The wiki article also has much more on punishment including: "As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication." http://wikiislam.net...
Antifa

I never said that Fascists were an abstract threat, only that there aren"t many of them, and that they have little to no power. Name one influential leader today who is an actual Nazi/fascist. You, like Antifa, are hard-pressed to find a leader of any great import to protest. Richard Spencer? The man has a small, cult-like following, and has as much right to espouse his opinions as anyone (regardless of how bigoted and evil they are.) If there was an actual chance for a fascistic regime to be implemented in America, then the situation would be different. There is no regime to fight against, but there are still regime-fighters. They need someone to fight, so they slate those with viewpoints to the right of their own with false adjectives. If I was not accurate in outlining their logic, then how do you explain the Antifa riots against the following: Ben Shapiro- A 5"9, Jewish, center-right conservative talk show host. He clearly poses no threat to anyone, and his Jewish heritage makes the claims of his alleged "Nazism" laughable. Carl Benjamin a.k.a. "Sargon of Akkad"- A classical liberal political commentator. Not a Nazi. Milo Yiannopolous- A right wing, Jewish, gay with a fetish for black men. Not a Nazi. Physical force is the most severe level of action that one can employ in a protest. Antifa"s willingness to use physical force is categorically indicative of their ethos "by any means necessary." In fact, one sect of Antifa is called BAMN, an acronym which literally stands for "By Any Means Necessary." That their violent and extreme tactics have some effect on the likes of Richard Spencer and the Alt-right is of no consequence. The fact remains that what they are doing is illegal, and more often than not, aimed at unjustifiable targets.
Antifa

The logic you ascribe to Antifa is not their logic. Not everyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi. A nazi/fascist is someone who advocates policies that require violence on a massive scale to achieve, and advocates things that really occurred and greatly shaped the 20th century. So its not an abstract threat. Also, the methodology is not 'by any means necessary.' The tactics that stand out are a willingness to use physical force, and tracking and "outing" fascists (ie, to employers). These are justifiable means, as people who make it a point to belittle and hate on others deserve to be treated harshly. Also, it's working, according to an article I read -- apparently the hounding by Antifa is part of the reason the alt-right has greatly shrunken in 6 months. Richard Spencer has decided that his rallies "aren't fun anymore."
Antifa

Antifa is a loosely syndicated coalition of anarcho-communists (or some iteration thereof.) Their core ethos is to stop the perceived rising tide of far-right, fascistic, ideology by any means necessary. While I do believe that one must be deluded beyond belief to suggest that the minuscule group of actual fascists poses a serious threat, this is not where I take issue with Antifa. They have a right to their opinions, protests, and all other accoutrements of conventional activism. Their methodology and fallacious logic employed to justify said methodology, however, is where the danger lies. In simplest terms, the base ideology of Antifa is as follows: It is more than acceptable to punch Nazis. Anyone who disagrees with me must be a Nazi. It's okay, no, admirable, to punch anyone who disagree's with me. Do you see how wrong that is? It is the final and inevitable evolution of the Ad Hominem mudslinging employed by both the far left and right. If one is willing and able to define any opposition as a morally reprehensible antagonistic figure (e.g. Nazi, racist, etc), then by Antifa's rules, any force employed to remove them is justified. What do you think? Is Antifa merely another activist group, or are they something more sinister. In my eyes they are fully and completely a Con.
Antifa

Let me try to make this simple since you're skimming and misstating everything I said: You make this claim about free speech and tolerance. But your premise is conditional. The virtuous path you're mandating doesn't exist in a morally corrupted society, as following the rules is not a virtuous position in such a society. To prove this, I mention Nazi Germany, where illegal violence against fascists is clearly justified, and following the rules is not virtuous. Lets call that a 10 on the fascism scale. A zero on the scale is a society and government that weeds out fascism by virtue of its own guiding principles. Ideas that violate those principles are bound to die off peacefully, making Antifa tactics unnecessary and dangerous. We're probably at F2 or so. How can you claim that fascism has no chance given the words and actions of the president? Birtherism, 3 million "fake votes", "fake news", alternate facts, Muslim bans, outright lies -- but fascism would be too far for these guys? Please Media actors have emerged that will carry any message. You can't show what's too far for Alex Jones or Breitbart. All they need is an outrageous agenda to push. So the fascists in Charlottesville thought they had a real chance. Since Trumpworld won't say this is wrong, it falls to other actors, such as Antifa, to do what the gatekeepers of our society are supposed to be doing, so that it doesn't go further. Great topic, great debate.
Antifa

Well well well "Then there's a circus of media enablers and opportunists like Alex Jones, Breitbart, Milo Yiannopolous, etc. willing to push any message." Do these people deserve to be physically attacked and silenced then? I disagree with them on many if not all points, but they have a right to speak, just as you and I do. I would no sooner attack them than I would a far left activist. Free speech is intrinsic to free life, which is the highest calling of enlightenment ideals. A person's speech has no power to affect violence unless that person is already in a position of power. I'm sorry, but the vast majority of the western world is decidedly in opposition to fascism. No amount of misquoting or generalization can change that fact. Coincidentally, you never refuted my examples of harmless speakers that were targeted by Antifa. The following is a link to images of Antifa flyers that literally call Ben Shapiro a fascist. If this does not substantiate my claims about their fallacious methodology (calling anyone who disagrees with them a fascist in order to justify violent riots against them) then I don't know what will. https://www.campusreform.org... I was waiting for you to cite Donald Trump as evidence of resurging fascist regime. While he is morally bankrupt, and I find many things about him repugnant, the burden of proof is on you to outline fascistic policies. It is quite a leap to suggest that because a reality TV star won an election, fascism is mainstream in the United States of America. Allegations like that require substantiation, and I have yet to hear factual evidence to support your claims. I barely need to respond to this final round because your argument disproves itself. You say that "When fascism takes over a society, as in Nazi Germany, violence is necessary." This statement assumes that fascism has indeed taken over our society, and therefore violence is necessary. However, earlier you said, "Maybe after Charlottesville, fascism in America isn't working out so well." You cannot have it both ways. Either fascism has pervaded American society to such a degree that violence is the only course, or it hasn't. Which is it? Are fascists weak and inconsequential enough to be dissuaded by a few riots, or are they powerful and influential? We are not under a fascist regime. The mere existence of fascist and alt right groups does not in any way imply causality of their own mainstreaming. Thank you for the debate, it was very entertaining and I hope to clash with you again soon.
Antifa

What you're missing is the potential that exists (or existed) for a real resurgence of fascist ideology. Western enlightenment ideas are not the norm for human society in the first place. In the second place, there were (and are) many signs of an openness to fascist ideas right now (and especially 6 months ago. Things are changing fast, which is why rapid responses are necessary). People in the highest positions of power, including the President and advisers like Steven Miller and Bannon, are willing to fan the flames of white nationalism to gain political leverage. Then there's a circus of media enablers and opportunists like Alex Jones, Breitbart, Milo Yiannopolous, etc. willing to push any message. Maybe after Charlottesville, fascism in America isn't working out so well. Antifa may have something to do with that. The point is that there are many people in positions of power and influence who will ride any train that gets them somewhere as far as it will go, and some trains are more dangerous than others. Enlightenment ideas require a defense, but we've always believed that as a country, so I don't see any problem defending them. As far as acceptable means, this depends on the ability of non-violent, legal means to protect our foundational ideas. In times when the law and society honor and protect those ideals, violence is unnecessary and unacceptable. When society rewards racists and liars, it becomes acceptable. When fascism takes over a society, as in Nazi germany, violence is necessary.
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

In this debate I believe I have provided valid and compelling evidence in support of my case and in negation of the resolution. I began my case by pointing out the differences in definition between logic, which is a set of rules versus 'cause and effect', whos definition relates with the interaction between to events. By then realizing that the resolution requires that 'cause and effect' has identicle function, value, meaning and operation with logic, that it in fact fails to realize this goal, hell it isn't even similar, they serve entirely different purposes. Secondly I made sure to differenciate reason with logic, a point my opponent fails to understand as can be noted by his proofs in his argument. In pro's final rebuttals to my argument he simply states unfounded fact and furthermore when pressured to explore his ideas in depth, beyond speculation and unfounded reason he simply fails to do so, and fails to respond. As a matter of pure fact, pro never once actually rebutted any of my arguments including the later arguments stating that because he had not rebutted my arguments that he forfeited the round. Yes, pro has indeed conceeded many things this round, arguments aren't the only thing, he has also accepted the full BoP and has utterly failed to show that indeed 'cause and effect' is quivelant to logic. In my argument I am the sole individual to even use citations. For the reasons provided and for the sake of the understanding and appreciation of logic itself I am compelled to demand an unilateral vote for con. I honestly thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate and hope that my opponent and I can have more debates, perhaps on a different subject, later on. Thanks
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

if that isnt clear i dont know what is.. would you let the window stay open if the wind constantly knocked over your cardhouse as you attempt to build it time and time again while failing miserably... unless you are cemented to to the floor and have nothing else to do or within your reach or something i dont see how that is resonable it isnt resonable to jump off a building, unless like its on fire and you are going to melt away, then a fall might be a more resonable choice of death
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

Answer: Yes, it is logical to keep the window open. However, This does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that cause and effect is the same as logic……Remember, you could be correct (I don’t think you are) but if you can’t dive deeper into the meaning of your statement/conclusion, and then Explain it to me as if I am a newborn child, then we all have no choice but to assume and believe you are wrong. Especially since you have BoP. You must explain it to me in detail……We will not and cannot accept your assumptions hiding behind your question (the one I quoted at the top of this argument), to then come to your final conclusion that logic is ‘cause and effect’. You Must Explain if you want us to know, end of story… Secondly, he has stated that “logic has no purpose. ” However, again, he has not provided reasons to support the claim and thus they are as void as a 1993 java script… . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Voters, please recognize that BOP is on pro, that he has yet to affirm the resolution because he fails to justify his claims and finally, that All of my arguments have been ignored; because “silence is compliance” in debate, he has conceded that my points are correct and thus they must be assumed to be true, if it isn’t apparent already, that is. I pass the gauntlet back to Bob. ..
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

Thank you for your response, I proceed to rebutt You’re one and only claim: “[Logic is] a car[d] house falling apart becasue of wind” 1st argument: you make a claim yet you have no warrant to back it up, or in other words you have stated something is true and yet you have provided no reason that it is true. The only thing you have done is state another truth which does not support the claim. What I am referring to is when you say: “closing the window is resonable when doing a cardhouse on a windy day...”……Ultimately, this does not prove your point though. Here is your logical proof of your claim, so it is simple to see. 1.) If you play a game, you do not want that game to be interrupted or jeopardized. 2.) Wind is threatening to ruin your game 3.) Thus stopping that threat (by shutting window) is reasonable 4.) Thus logic is equivelant to and means the same thing as 'cause and effect'. The argument in itself is a complete non-sequitir argument/fallacy, meaning your premises (premises 1,2 and 3), do not logically result in your claim/conclusion (#4 up above). That’s why non-sequitir as you probably know is translated as “does not follow”. In order for this claim sequence to be true you would have to show me how the simple action of being-reasonable logically leads to the conclusion/claim that you have provided up above on #4. As of now though this is not an argument. Please explain, and if you could, making a logical proof would be extremely helpful for the both of us.......................................................................................................................................................................... I end my argument again and extend my previous arguments as they have not been contested. Please note that the opponent has conceded his possession of full Burden of Proof and thus it is his sole responsibility to prove himself right. Thank you, I pass the pen back to the opponent. ......................................................................................................................................................................... Also, my citations for all definitions last round were simply from google and dictionary.com, if you would like to have every citation for each definition, I can go back and find them. Also, about the quotation describing the purpose of logic, it can be found below. The last citation I will provide is just a link to the description of a non-sequitir argument. Purpose of logic: http://www.iep.utm.edu... Definition of non-sequitir fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
cause+(and)effect=(is)logic

the purpose of cause and effect.. your definitions are all over the place logic is also a set of rules that govern truth.. like its a carshouse falling apart becasue of wind.. so closing the window is resonable when doing a cardhouse on a windy day... there is no logic in fantasy is it logical to eat a poisonous mushroom if you want to be healthy and you know the mushroom is poisonous? why not..
The Feminist Movement has achieved all its goals, and is no longer needed, in the Western World.

1. You have not proven that women are being discriminated against. The wage gap existing is not inherent proof. Interviewers being persuasive is a very strange, unsubstantiated and unexplained argument. You haven't proven they abuse their power as interviewers, merely claim they might be able to, and haven't backed that up. In the case of Microsoft, that is an accusation, not concrete proof of discrimination. The high profile cases, like Ellen Pao's, came to a conclusion that no wrongdoing was done. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 2. I question my opponent's decision to interpret the western world as consisting of a series of middle Eastern and Asian countries. I feel my opponent is currently using unethical standards, defining terms in ways that are illogical. I'll further look at this in his later argument. 3. Here my opponent has not clearly understood my arguments. Allow me to reiterate. Yes, women study. They study different fields then men do. For example, gender studies. Look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... They take different jobs. Now, my opponent says men should not be more likely than women to be doctors, lawyers or business executives. Then he claims the only evidence we have is mine. The evidence I have is from the US treasury. I recommend that when myopponent complains of lack of evidence, he step forward to provide some evidence for his side. Now, for the books... Is he claiming that women taking time off work to have children is a stereotype? Women getting pregnant is a fact of life, so in the best case scenario they must take nine months off work. I ask my opponent to go into further detail in how he thinks the stereotype should be 'fixed'. His current explanation does no such thing. 4. Firstly, let me say that my opponent is practicing some disingenuous tactics. Appealing to voters rather than arguing for any sake, or double checking my statistics. I admit I didn't provide sources, which is my bad, but he could've checked. I'll provide sources.https://www.google.com.sg... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Now, most of the argument I laid down was an argument against ale privilege, a pre-emotive argument that was situation ally applicable. I'll assume my opponent has stepped up to the plate and claimed it then. Well, my opponent does not understand how the world works. Yes, discrimination happens, and it is impossible to stop. It will always exist. All we can do, and all that should be done, is to find a method to stop it. It is like arguing that a just society should have zero crime attempts. Instead, the logical method is to have methods of prosecuting and preventing crime. However, such things will happen. Saying it is wrong and providing an avenue to report them is all that needs to be done. Things to consider: my opponent is being disingenuous, arguing that the western world involves the middle east, and nitpicking over sources. It is not a problem to ask for sources. I find it unethical to speak directly to the voters, claim they could be made up, and not ask for clarification.
The Feminist Movement has achieved all its goals, and is no longer needed, in the Western World.

Rebuttals 1. Wage Gap Firstly, there definitely is a law demanding equal pay. The equal pay act in the US, http://www.eeoc.gov... and the Sex Discrimination Act in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org... In our case, the race of the person doesn't matter, since that is not what we are debating. I argue that it doesn't matter how much that women earn on average as compared to men, since a count of the overall population does not mean equality. Instead, equality is enforced since both men and women receive equal pay for equal work. 2. All of those countries. "In the Western World" -This is what I explicitly stated in the motion. While I did state that you win if feminism still has work to do, this was stated under the constraints of the given motion. All the countries you stated are not part of the first world, or western world by any stretch of the imagination, therefore they are not relevant to this debate. Since none of my points have been rebutted(Wage Gap argument was argued against with statistics I have explained in my first speech), they all still stand.
The Feminist Movement has achieved all its goals, and is no longer needed, in the Western World.

Feminism: A range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. I'll be arguing that the feminist movement has accomplished everything it needs to do, at least in the Western World. You will win the debate if you manage to prove feminism still has work to do, and I will if I prove feminism has achieved those goals already. If you want to start the debate, you may present your arguments in your round and forfeit the last round. If not, just accept. Last speech in the debate will be for rebuttals only. Good luck.