BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women Are Treated Unfairly

Women should be equal to men but they are treated unequally. For example, "Women are almost half of the workforce. They are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of American families with children. They receive more college and graduate degrees than men. Yet, on average, women continue to earn considerably less than men. In 2015, female full-time, year-round workers made only 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 20 percent. Women, on average, earn less than men in nearly every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio. In middle-skill occupations, workers in jobs mainly done by women earn only 66 percent of workers in jobs mainly done by men" (Institute for Women"s Policy Research paragraph 1 and 2). This shows that women work a lot to earn for their families but aren"t paid the equal amount of money men doing the same job get.
Foreign aid is a luxury we can"t afford.

Strictly speaking, It depends on what the aid is going to. As if it is a luxury the United States can't afford, I do not agree with that, however. The United States spends about 1% of its total budget on foreign aid, but what we define as foreign aid in this debate also matters, as aid could just be money or military assistance. In general, however, if we do include military assistance as a form of foreign aid, I would argue that this form of aid is very beneficial to the United Staes and its interests. Money, on the other hand, is a different story. Monetary aid can also be beneficially, but where the money goes after it being given to a nation of waring partner is less in the control of the benefactor. But overall, considering the current cost of foreign aid and its effects globally, I would argue that it is a luxury that we can afford.
Gay marriage

Conclusion: I'm sorry to see my opponent has made no argument. I was curious to see what kind of challenge I would have. There has been no attempt to refute my case, and no other case has been made. There's no need to restate my arguments, because nothing has changed. If someone wants to challenge me to an actual debate, please let me know. Juudy has forfeited this debate. Vote if you wish, but there's really no point.
Gay marriage is moral and should be legalized

Foreword: Gay marriage is only legal in 19 states in the US. Gay marriage is legal in 17 countries world wide, 19 if you count the US and Mexico, but it is only legal in certain places in those countries. and I will now present my arguments: P1) Unjust bigotry: People are discriminated against for their sexuality, even to the point of lynching [1]. In the workplace, some gay employees will be paid less, fired, or not hired in the first place do to these prejudices [2]. The legalization and normalization of gay marriage would help with this issue greatly. P2) Financial benefits: By the law, marriages are both a civil and financial union, denying gay people this right will hurt their income and assets. This could cause debt to rise or poorer credit. [3] P3) Tax benefits: Gay unions could bring in many millions of dollars tax revenue year round [4a]. This is proven by the NYC city income increase with gay marriage [4b]. P4) Fairness: It is not at all fair if the LGBT community cannot marry but the heterosexual community cannot. P5) It is not a choice: If it were a choice no one would be gay. Not because it is wrong, because of the discrimination. P6) Who is it hurting: If you are right, being gay is not moral and gays will go to hell, (if that is in fact what you believe) they are already going to hell and it doesn't matter if they can get married lawfully. P7) Government: The USA has no official religion, its ideals of impartiality should reflect that. I will now rebut possible arguments by my opponent: R1) Argument rebutted, It is agains the bible: specifically it is against Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, If we choose to follow Leviticus, polyester should also be illegal, Leviticus 19:19 says not to mix fabrics. R2) Argument rebutted, God hates gays: John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.", if this is true god does not hate gays. If god is love and hates gays he is the opposite of himself, which is impossible. R3) Argument rebutted, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve: I prey to god you don't use this argument, it is the N-word for LGBT people. R3) Argument rebutted, Only use the word "marriage" for straight unions, use the term "Civil Union" for LGBT unions: So, separate but equal. That turned out great!!! (sarcasm) I will now pose questions to my opponent: Q1) if god hates gays, why does he do so? Q2) What harm does it do? Q3) If god hates gays, why do they exist [f1] http://www.pewforum.org... [1] http://www.wsws.org...... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... [3] http://money.howstuffworks.com...... (read all slides) [4a] http://www-personal.umich.edu...... [4b] http://money.cnn.com......
Gay marriage is moral and should be legalized

Who decides what "traditional vows" are? Also, who says what "normal marriage" is? Either way, bigotry is bigotry. On the clarification: Who says marriage is for a man and a woman. How does it ruin the meaning of family? If each party loves each other and want to spend their lives together, who are we to stop them? Give me one instance and a source of gay marriage ruining the kid's friendships, then talk to me about that. Ok, if we cannot leave out one gender, why is being a single parent legal? Clarification of P2. This point covered the financial benefits of marriage denied to homosexuals. P3. Actually this website is more against single parents. Also how does it ruin marriage? If it both brings money in, and helps other people, it should be legal. P4. Uhh you didn't rebut that. P5. My fifth point states that no person would choose to be gay because of the problems they have, this was a point to state that we need to let them be themselves. P6. So, morality is irrelevant? ?? The ten commandments are morals and I believe you find those relevant. Yes and who exactly made The United States, a religiously free nation, should be governed by the bible? Feeling the religious freedom right now. Again, what about single parents, that leaves out one parent. Sex is not the purpose of marriage! !! If it was infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. Well, you are against gay marriage because of the bible, it is a matter of religion. Calm down I'm not persecuting you, I respect your opinion. R1. You have no way of knowing that the opinion that homosexuals are an "atrocity" wasn't part of their culture. R2. Ok I understand, you may not hate them. Conversely, there are those that do hate gays (I. E. homophobic people). I do not believe you hate gays. I was simply rebutting the argument that god does. About Q1. You actually did not answer that. Q2. Like I stated before, If that is why gay marriage should be illegal, so should single parenting. About Q3. You really didn't answer this question either
Gay marriage is moral and should be legalized

P1. I don't know why people treat gays less except for the fact that it goes against traditional vows and a lot are offended and some just don't want normal marriage to change. Some bosses don't allow gays because it interferes with their work and goes against what the boss believes for his company. Clarification: why is gay marriage considered wrong to some people? Because marriage is only intended for a man and a woman. Same sex ruins the meaning of family, it ruins the friendships of the kids, and it leaves one gender out (this shouldn't be the right environment for children to grow up in). P2. ? P3. Is our goal to get money for the economy and government? Go back to the clarification I wrote and it all comes down to families. Gays might bring in money but the families are still different. The criminal activity will go up in numbers because of the kids having 'no dad' or 'no mom.' http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com... P5. ? P6. As a Christian (like me) morality is not relevant. I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible says marriage is strictly man and woman, that's how sex happens, that's how it should stay because if the family is not that way then there is someone left out (either the mom or the dad). Children go under custody. It is not a matter of religion, IT IS JUST WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT. R1. When was the Bible written? Anyways, Leviticus is a journal of a person about 3,000 years ago. Polyester was not "banned" by God. Perhaps it was there culture R2. I don't believe God hates (except evil), in fact he has a place in his heart for everyone including gays. We are all human, incapable of being perfect, and no sin is worse than another. But since gay marriage goes against what God intends for us, Christians disagree with gays. But we don't hate them. Your questions are not specified, but for Q2 I will say this: gays hurt families. See the website I gave. I think I answered the rest earlier.
Social media undermines the marketplace of ideas

i mean, it doesn't neccessarely undermine the marketplace, it is a good idea, and from that good idea they've sparked a long lasting flame that hasn't gone out for 20 years, I think it's doing alright. Now personally I would never use it, I think it's just a waste of time, and the communities they have are addicts to their sh!t, so it's debatable upon if you can even give it attention anymore without looking like a complete ftcking doofus.
the government should encourage more people to use motorcycles

Motorcycles are no dangerous at all. Thinking out of the box, no inanimate object is dangerous. It's how we interact with everything that makes them dangerous or not. Would you call drinking alcohol extremely dangerous? Probably not, but literally thousands more people die as a direct result of alcohol than those who die while riding motorcycles. Again, this is about riders and drivers which as you say is an argument about riders and riders attitudes, which you didn't want to expand on and I shall not just to remain objective. I agree that roads need to be maintained. But there is no argument is saying encouraging more to ride motorcycles would worsen road surfaces. Firstly, if more people were to ride motorcycles, they wouldn't use cars as much, which are significantly heavier. But simply, bad roads for the most part, are caused by extreme variants in weather conditions. Roads crack and morph as the weather changes from extremely hot to cold....and visa-verse. So it wouldn't matter if more people ride motorcycles, if anything, it would be better for road surfaces. And what ever the statistics say, they still don't give the full picture. Let's say a motorcyclist killed himself because he was speeding. I think we can both agree that rider was an idiot for speeding in the first place, but he has now paid the price for that. But it was his risk to take. But what about car drivers?? Many accidents happen with car loads full of people, and drivers are still stupid. At this point they are actively putting everyone in the car in danger. I understand a biker could hit other cars . But the purpose of this point is to again show your statistic curve balls mean nothing as a stand alone figure. Moving on to congestion....do you honestly think it is a good idea to 'expand' roads in city centers?? just trying to plan this would be a logistic nightmare, not to mention how much it would cost. And as I have already pointed out...using motorcycles relieve congestion. And I can say this without any stats, facts or figures, as it's common sense. Your point about not being able to use a motorcycle all year round. This depends largely where you live. I live in the UK, and largely there are only a few days in the year that are bad enough so that I can no longer ride my bike. And as you say, this does not mean people are unable to get into work as they have excellent public transport to rely on. And bad hair? a mirror and some hair wax... fixed. finally, if people can't or don't won't to ride motorcycles....then fine. To close, more people should be encouraged to ride motorcycles for the reasons discussed above. But I do maintain a change would and should be accompanied by a 'shake-up' of rider and drivers attitudes a-like when it comes to driving/riding safely.
the government should encourage more people to use motorcycles

Okay I agree the second point hardly related and I'm kicking that. So yes, motorcycles are extremly dangerous let me extend on that since it will be my main pointNo number crunching this time just pure logic:So yes we agree that cars and motorcycles dont mix since you stated that yourself that the possiblity of cars crashing into these motorcycles and them dying is possible however i Believe that you were stating that it woundnt be their fault pretty much correct? Well if you think about by encouraging more motorist then your going to increase the amount of death wether it be by drivers or the motorists themselves Also think about this, current infrastructure is in such a state of disrepair that the roads are in no state of condition to safely support an increase in motorists.Third, motorcycle crashes statisticly prove 5x more fatal then car crashes, the thousands of crashes we have every year would then increase the amount of lives lost by an astronomical numberOn to your points :D1. congestion. Congestion needs to be solved by utilizing the revenue of 217 billion from the gas tax to expand roads and therefor safley fix this problem, instead of encouraging people to use the barbaric death traps2. Work. People might indeed use your motorcycles to get to work, oh wait, no they wont. I'm sure im speaking for thousands of workers when I say that I personally need to place to put my stuff when im going to work aswell as keeping my hair combed to some degree, and well I'm not get on my motorcycle in middle of winter correct? or What if its raining? Do i show up to work wet?That is if I even get to work, according to the facts I've researched I'd be scared for my life that I'll die.As a matter of fact this is such a bogus point that I'm going to turn this as an advantage to my offence, people can't use motorcycles all year long and they must yeild to the weather so losing jobs by missing work becomes a problem. 3. Road safety. To be honest since so many americaners would never ride a motorcycle [I.E. certain religious groups, elder people, most women in general.. ect] that the safety change wouldnt even be notice able, which gets me into a ridership argument
the government should encourage more people to use motorcycles

With all due respect I think a reminder of the debate topic is needed. We are to discuss points for or against the question of 'should the government encourage more people to use motorcycles?' the latter two thirds of your opening statement was completely unrelated which surrounded the topic of gun crime. In response to the points made, firstly, you called this a 'mindless ideal'. That is to say, you feel this is an ideal with no meaningful thought or evidence behind it. By the same token, your first paragraph is over saturated in facts, figures and numbers. I understand why you have presented them, but how you have presented them has rendered the figures meaningless. Without confirming the numbers myself, there may have been at least 34,000 motorcyclist killed in the studies you provided. But there is no causation with your numbers. for all I know, they could have been killed by drunk drivers. Anyone can use facts and figures in a debate, but where's the cause and effect? where's the meaning behind your number juggling? The only directly relevant point I can pick out is 'motorcycles are dangerous'. I agree. But bad car drivers are even more dangerous. You speak of the government having 'better things to do'. I think this is a poor point; it is not as if all departments of government would divert all other work just to promote motorcycling. I'm thinking more small time anyway through TV advertisement and posters perhaps. - To make some points of my own which you may or may not want to respond to directly, firstly, think of congestion. Heavy traffic in city centres is a real problem. it means congestion, which leads to impatient drivers, which leads to risky driving and ultimately accidents. - Another point is getting people in to work. Motorcycles are significantly cheaper to run than cars. This is especially so for young people. - Being a motorcyclist and going through correct training, actually improves many other aspects of road safety. Motorcyclists are also safer drivers and pedestrians, as they are more aware of dangers on the road than car drivers. I have more points to give, but I will now give way for my opponent to respond. hopefully we can expand on these points as well as adding new ones.
video games

As Instigator has forfeited once again, I will give my argument. Though video games are an activity to pass the time, there are some other alternatives. The one I'll mainly be using is sports. Sports do what Instigator said about video games and more. - Sports can be considered fun, and can be effectively used to pass the time. - Playing sports can lead you to meet new people. But there's a big difference between sports and video games. Though I can't say anything about either being more enjoyable over another, Playing sports will lead you to bond stronger with new people. Since you meet them in person, you will be able to hold more relations with them and trust them more, versus a person you barely know and trust that you met through the internet and don't even know what they look like. Also, video games may bring you towards new people, they aren't always the most pleasant people to be around, especially ones from hyper-competitive games (Specifically, Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas, or MOBAs) will flame others around them and negatively effect their experience. Playing sports also makes the "players" healthier. Sports consist of physical activity, meaning that, opposed to sitting on the couch, they will be active and benefiting their bodies. Those are my arguments, and hopefully you will take them into consideration.
video games

Instigator's argument is that gaming is a good activity when one is bored and is actually "fun" and connects you with others around the world.Problems with Instigator's argument:Instigator states gaming is a "good activity." I am not sure what the Instigator means by "good activity". Does he mean healthy? Does he mean something else? Instigator must polish this argument to be more valid.POINT 1: What does good activity mean? It is not defined and seems like an opinion.The word fun is subjective. One may find reseaching paper more fun than video games. One may find board games more fun than video games. POINT 2: Video games are not "fun" for everybody. There are some who dislike video games, because "fun" is a subjective term.Next, Instigator points our that it connects you to people around the world. However, that can only be true for multiplayer games or games with a large community. POINT 3: Gaming can only connect you to others only if you have certain games and internet access.I await future arguments from Instigator.
Christianity

1. According to your logic, your God loves us all. But in reality, I can find him to be a dictator of a celestial North Korea. 2. I did not misunderstand. Easy question it was. ( False dichotomy)3. A Personal Anecdote does not give anything. I am yet to find someone who did not believe in SANTA CLAUS and then started believing in. ( Naked assertion )4. The snake talked using vibrations? And who received that? And why does the Bible not specify that clearly? Perhaps, the storymakers did not have that much scientific knowledge back them, did they?5. Where is the proof that they themselves wrote it? Learn the difference between a historical text and personal anecdotes.Nothing to say!
Birds should not be caged as pets.

Birds are not so different from any other pet commonly kept in America. They are similar to many other animals that also spend a majority of their lives in cages or enclosures yet at the same time they are smarter than most pets which allows them to easily adjust to domesticated lives as pets. The majority of this debate was centered over the practice of keeping birds in cages and whether or not wing clipping was ethical. I have showed how some bird cages can be quite large and more than suitable for birds to live in, while also showing how wing clipping is done primarily through safety for the birds and that it does not completely eliminate all forms of exercise for the bird. Wing clipping is by far more ethical than amputating the wings off of birds as well. As for the emotional problems that birds suffer, I have shown how it is a common practice for birds to be bought in pairs so that the birds can socialize with their own kind and not suffer from many emotional stresses they would otherwise endure. The easy care for birds is so small that it also places no additional burden on the owner to care for them. Diet wise, all animals are limited primarily to forms of seed of some sort, few animals are ever fed fruits and vegetables the Pro thinks that should be fed to birds, but this seed is still nutritious enough to allow birds to live for years and years. As for neglect, birds can go through neglect from their owners, but this is not limited to birds because this affects all pets, some more than birds. The Pro claims the size of the birds is why humans dominate them, but the size of birds compared to humans are comparable to the sizes all other pets as well. Lastly, think of their harmlessness of the birds often kept as pets, many of them would not be able to survive in the real world due to their size, large number of predators, and few skills to hunt for food and water. As pets, birds enjoy life without having to worry about food, water, predators, loneliness, weather, or danger. I thank the Con for a very fun debate and the voters for reading, I invite voters to please giving conduct to the Con. After I forfeited round 4 of this debate the Con decided to restart the debate instead of rubbing it in, and her kindness should not go unrewarded. Thank you for reading :)