BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism: Positive or Negative

Hey, hey, glad this debate is fully underway! Thanks for your arguments, bryanlink.The resolution states "Feminism: Positive or Negative". I find a good portion of what CON said to be of value. However, most of what was said here does not affirm the resolution. I offered a Maxim by which to decide a winner. It currently remains unchallenged. As such, my rebuttals will be in relation to CON"s failure to address the Maxim in these opening statements.A Philosophy/Ideology is not equal to it's adherents.CON opens by stating "I am not going by the traditional definition of feminism", yet offers no definition, and chooses not to challenge the one I have offered. Even if all of what CON claims is true, a "feminist" is not "feminism". For example, one cannot argue that law enforcement is, on balance, a negative based on the fact that there are some bad cops. A cop might be in law enforcement, but a cop is not identical to law enforcement. There are good and bad people in the world. The fact that some people are bad, or make poor decisions does nothing to suggest that people are, in fact, bad. This is the Composition Fallacy. CON is reasoning from the fact that a selection of the set is bad that therefore the entire set is bad. A feminist is not feminism, any more than a brick is a house. If tumblr feminists and radical feminists were the only ones which existed, then perhaps this would work. However, Feminists have existed at least since the 18th century. The majority of CON's arguments rests on this fallacy. Even CON's comments on rape culture, Patriarchy, and Male Oppression rest on this fallacy. I agree that these are harmful theories, however, they are not embraced by feminists everywhere. In fact, if we take the definition above, most people are feminists, that is, they wish for men and women to be equal by law. The term "masculinist" refers to a person of this mindset in relation to men. CON's reasoning does not offer support for the resolution that must be upheld. CON must offer reasons to believe that Feminism is negative. The Maxim and definitions I offered are up for challenge and discussion. However, they stand unless a challenge is presented.
Feminism: Positive or Negative

Hello, hello! Let's make this a great debate.IntroductionSome debate issues before I make my arguments. Since this is an "A or B" debate, Burden of Proof is shared between us. Meaning, I must make a reasonable case to believe Feminism is positive, and CON must make a reasonable case to believe Feminism is negative.First and foremost, a definition. "Feminism" is "The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes". Since my opponent has offered no explication of the terms "positive" and "negative", I will do so. To say that "X is positive" is to say that X benefits society such that if X were not in effect/existence/practice, there would be some maxim that is not achieved. To say that "X is negative" is to say that X is a detriment to society such that if X were not in effect/existence/practice, there would be some maxim that is achieved. I find the maxim "All people, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, should be held equal under law" to be quite appropriate, given the topic of discussion. Of course, this can be challenged and discussed. To achieve the Maxim"Feminism" has a long standing tradition. The practices and beliefs that feminism embodies ideologically first became prominent in the 18th century. This was around the time that the system of coverture was in place. Coverture is the legal principle whereby, upon marriage, a women's legal identity is subsumed into that of her husband and she can no longer control the use of her property, nor can she sue or be sued herself, nor execute contracts. Essentially, a woman was unable to be independent of her husband. Regardless of one's beliefs regarding the subject (some suggest this was misogyny; others suggest it was a fair trade), the fact remains that a woman did not have those rights which men were afforded. It is here that advocacy comes into play. "Advocacy" is "Public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy" [3]. Since coverture was a legal principle, it could only be changed if it is changed in the law. Someone, at some point, had to support women's rights, otherwise coverture would still be in affect. By acting to change the law, this person X has shown support for women's rights, towards the goal of the sexes being equal, thus this person has advocated for women's rights. This person, by definition above, then, would be a feminist. ConclusionSo, then, feminism allows for men and women to be equal under the law. Thus, the requirements for feminism to be "positive" have been fulfilled, per the maxim described above. Again, the maxim can be challenged, just as my explications can. However, if they are not challenged, and CON cannot show feminism to lead to a failure to attain the maxim, I have fulfilled my burden of proof. I do look forward to rebuttals.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://womenshistory.about.com... [3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Platypus' are actually birds, not mammals because the have bills.

Pro states, "Platypus' have feathers. Their fur is actually made of of hundreds of thousands on tiny feathers creating the illusion of feathers. "He has no source on this, and it's invalid. I presented a source previously that Platypus' did have fur. A bird DOES NOT HAVE TO FLY! it just needto HAVE WINGS. A platypus does not have wings. Plain and simple. I'm sorry that I had a typo. I meant to type in "A Platypus doesn't have all of the features required to be considered a bird. "But I accidently typed in "A Platypus doesn't have all of the features required to be considered a beard" It's my fault for the typo, but I think it's obvious what I was saying. I should Win this deabte, and it's plainly obvious why.
Platypus' are actually birds, not mammals because the have bills.

You are so wrong in so many ways. Platypus' have feathers. Their fur is actually made of of hundreds of thousands on tiny feathers creating the illusion of feathers. You also seemed to avoid my valid point that platypus' are actually birds that are afraid of heights. Their wings have evolved over time to that of webbed 'feet' however they are scientifically classified at wings. I am from Australia and have personally witnessed a platypus fly for a short period of time. much like a chicken flying... it's limited. Finally you stated "A Platypus doesn't have all of the features required to be considered a beard." However we are not debating whether or not Platypus have beards because it is clear that they do, we are actually debating that they are birds. You have brought beards into this because you have realised the short fall in your argument and are trying to distract me and the voters from your weak argument. It is obvious that platypus are birds.
Platypus' are actually birds, not mammals because the have bills.

Pro states, "The lay eggs, just like other birds."Just because something lays eggs doesn't mean it's a bird. Snakes lay eggs [1], and they aren't birds. Characteristiscs of a bird [2]: Feathers! All birds have feathers. Birds have a backbone. They are vertebrates. All birds are warm-blooded. They can regulate their body temperature. Female birds lay eggs. Their young develop inside of the egg. Birds have wings, but not all birds use them to fly. Penguins and ostriches are examples of birds that do not fly. A Platypus doesn't have all of the features required to be considered a beard. First of all, a platypus doesn't have feathers, it has fur. Next, all birds have wings - Platypus don't have wings.I can't tell if this is a troll debate or not, but please vote Con in the name of science; our classification system has been perfected over the years, and this guy seriousy thinks that a platypus is bird.Sources:[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;[2] http://www.nwf.org...;
Platypus' are actually birds, not mammals because the have bills.

The con argument is trying to pick up on a simple mistake, platypus' have bills and not beaks. The con argument has flawed himself, he did not include a reference regarding the reproduction of platypus' and is actually wrong. They lay eggs exactly like other birds, (1) Platypus also have webbed feet much like other birds. (2) It is obvious that platypus are birds. (1) http://australianmuseum.net.au... (2) http://www.livescience.com...
Platypus' are actually birds, not mammals because the have bills.

My opponent's argument here is that Platypus' are birds. As Con, my burden of proof is to prove that Platypus' are not birds.First of all, I would like to note a small contridiction stated in his argument, and in the title. In his argument, he writes, "This is shown through their beak, no other mammal has a beak therefore it can not be possible for a platypus to be a mammal."In his title he states, "Platypus' are actually birds, not mammals because the have bills."In his title his justification is because they have bills, in his argument it's because they have a beak.His title is correct, but his argument is wrong. A platypus does not have a beak, it has a bill. Since his argument assumes that a Platypus has a beak, the entire argument falls.Now that i've proven his whole argument false, I will prove why a Platypus is infact a mammal.A mammal has the following characteristics [1]:1. All mammals are warm blooded.2. Most young are born alive.3. They have hair or fur on their bodies4. Every mammal is a vertebrate.5. All mammals have lungs to breathe air.6. Mammals feed milk to their babies.1a. A platypus is warm blooded [2]2a. A platypus is born alive (I think this is super obvious, which is why I didn't include a source)3a. A platypus has fur on their bodies when it is born [3]4a. A platypus has a vertebre [4]5a. A platypus has lungs [5]6a. A platypus feeds milk to it's babies [6]Please vote Con, as Pro has absolutely no evidence to back up his claim, and his thinking is very irrational. Sources:[1] http://faculty.buffalostate.edu...;[2] http://www.platypus.asn.au...[3] http://www.livescience.com...[4] and [5] http://australianmuseum.net.au...[6] http://www.animalfactguide.com...
Platypus' are actually birds, not mammals because the have bills.

Platypus are not mammals. It is extremely clear that platypus are not mammals and are in fact birds that have evolved to swim. This is shown through their beak, no other mammal has a beak therefore it can not be possible for a platypus to be a mammal. I believe platypus have evolved over time because some birds are scared of heights and therefore would prefer to swim.
If God does not exist, then life is purposeless

Thanks to my opponent. Rebuttals & Rebuild 1. Misuse of expressions. The resolution clearly means ALL. Most is many, but not all. This is not a semantical argument, it is a valid quantitive argument. 2. Dawkins quote. He in fact used the word "if". If is a lack of certainty or a hypothetical, NOT a definite. 3. Pro introduced the term random process also w/o explaination. People do not just wander around aimlessly, people plan and execute daily happenings and functions with an end result in mind. That is a purpose. They do so to fulfill vital human needs, thus NOT purposeless. 4. While some purposes may seem meaningless to the uninvolved, they are critical to those specifically involved. In this instance, it is my opponent who is playing the semantical strawman. My intent was to convey that since no criterion was established by PRO to the measurement of purpose, then ANY recognized purpose is acceptable for the purpose of this debate. Any recognized purpose is more than NO purpose at all and equals a purpose in life. My very offering of a clarification serves a purpose. 5. People MUST eat and drink. They eat or drink for the purpose of satisfying hunger or thirst. Both the process of eating and drinking are both vital and purposeful for the sustainment of life. 6. The purpose of a company is to produce a good or service which fills its place in supply and demand. Said functions are done by human beings with the purpose of fulfilling a lifetime goal or a human need, or even a human luxury. VOTER ISSUES: 1. Pro has no specific case of his own, only unsubstantiated rebuttals to mine. 2. I have demonstrated examples of human functions that are vital for the purpose of life. 3. People who do not accept a God do strive to achieve personal & social goals. This effort equals purpose which brings joy and satisfaction to their lives. It is what they live for. It is important to them, thus it is purposeful.
If God does not exist, then life is purposeless

==Rebuttals==1. Most, much, some: Con tries to misuse expressions. When I say 'Most atheists' he jumps and says 'MOST, not ALL'. He does not bother to provide a counter-example. Had I said 'atheists' instead of 'most atheists' he would be left without an argument - even though qualitatively, nothing has changed. This kind of argument is clearly semantic in nature, which is against rule of this debate. Such arguments should be ignored. This might be a conduct violation as well.2. IF: Con wants to reject Dawkins testimony based on an 'if'. A quick look statements confirms that 'if' has not been used as a conditional specifier. A wrong semantic argument.3. Con 'taglines' that life is not a random process. He has not explained it. He has not shown its relevance to this debate. 4. No standard: My opponent admits there is no specific criterion or standard for life. This means all purpose are equally meaningless because they can never be objectively evaluated. It is natural that atheists will choose some artificial purpose to lead life. This is perfectly OK. However, as I had explained in OP, none of this purpose can be considered as purpose for life itself. To win this debate, the Con should have proved that one of this purpose is so crucial that it should be considered a purpose for life itself. He has failed completely in doing that.5. Human needs: Con does not explain why sustaining 'human life' is a valid purpose for life. Why not collective suicide? Since both of them are contradictory, and equally applicable, it means both of them are not real purpose of life.6. Entrepreneurs, companies, schools, corporations, military: Con has not shown that any of these purpose is having any meaning in life. This means that these are artificial purposes which are not relevant to this debate. Con has conceded that no 'specific criteria' exists for judging life. This means he admits that life has no specific purpose. The resolution is affirmed.
If God does not exist, then life is purposeless

I. 1. Nor can pro define all the terms w/o challenge 2. Definitions cannot be one sided 3. Sources are a voting criteria 4. n/a 5. Motivation is relevant to purpose. II. concur III. my case below IV. Opponent's case. 1. My opponent states "most athiests" most is not "all" which the resolution implies. Since some do, Con wins this point. 2. The quote offered as a contention contains the word "if" which is inconclusive, therefore this contention is unsubstantiated speculation at best which renders it inadmissable as evidence. 3. As my opponent stated, no new evidence shall be admissable in the final round, thus; with this sole contention defeated, he can rebut my case in the 3rd round, but has no case of his own the balance of this debate. My opponent dropped all of my tagline topics from round 1, therefore they stand undisputed. -Life is not a random process -Individuals do have motivations which define purpose -Some athiests that do not accept a G-d do have purpose in their lives -My opponent did not appeal his contradictions that I cited. My case Tag 1 There are basic human needs. A human purposes to meet these needs out of instinct and necessity. Maslow identified: physiological, safety, love & belonging, esteem, self actualization, and self transcendence. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs As these have to be met, a human MUST purpose to meet them in order to sustain life. Tag 2 Entrepreneurs, companies, schools, corporations, and many other organizations are ran by human beings. They all have goals, vision statements, and mission statements. These 3 quests are purpose, or reason for the former's endeavors. Thus purpose, not purposeless. U.S. military doctrine states that activities be defined in purpose, direction, and motivation. As the U.S. military, composed of human beings, has a world wide presence, it has a purpose, thus not purposeless. Tag 3: As there was no specific criterion that means ANY purpose is acceptable
If God does not exist, then life is purposeless

I. Redefinition1. Any definitions posted in opening round are part of the argument. Con cannot be allowed to redefine all the terms.2. In case your arguments rely on definitions - they are semantic in nature - and are not allowed in this debate.3. I did not provide a source, as I did not find it necessary. My definitions are from [1]. I have defined God on my own.4. My opponent makes a vague statement that my definitions leave room for ambiguity. If he wants to debate using that he is welcome. The voters will decide whether his arguments are valid and non-semantic. If he decides not to use that, his suggestions are irrelevant.5. I accept my opponents definition of life. Motivation does not appear anywhere in resolution. My opponent has defined 'Purpose' while the resolution states 'Purposeless'.II. Word LimitDebating within limits is a skill. You had the choice to accept or reject the debate. You have 2000 more characters to argue your case. It is not considered correct in debates to introduce new arguments in final round.III. TaglinesI can only guess the arguments from 'taglines'. I look forward to coherent arguments from my opponent in next round so that I may rebut them properly in my final round.IV. My argumentActually most atheist admit that their is no special meaning (purpose or goal) for the universe (and the life it contains). One of the most notorious and pathetic atheist, Richard Dawkins states[2]:The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.Needless to say, he is speaking with his usual assumption that God does not exist.[1] www.thefreedictionary.com[2] http://www.positiveatheism.org...
If God does not exist, then life is purposeless

OBSERVATIONS: 1. My opponent cited no sources. 2. The definition of God offered by my opponent is too subjective. While we most likely know who (which G-d) he probably meant, the ambiguity leaves room for speculation even without a squirrel case or semantical case. 3. I challenge the 2nd part of the proposed definition of purposeless, namely meaningless or aimless. 4. I accept the definition presented for exist, and the first part of the definition of purposeless and submit the following definitions of my own: Purpose: 1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal. 6. to set as an aim, intention, or goal for oneself. 8. to resolve (to do something): He purposed to change his way of life radically. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... Life: 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. 1b : a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... Motivation: 1. The reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way. Source: Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster Sign Posting I didn't catch the 2000 character limit therefore I will only address tag lines in this round OPP Case Taglines 1. I disagree that life is a random process 2. Individuals do have motivations 3. Athiests that do not accept any God still have purposes in their lives 4. My opponent has contradicted himself on two occasions. a. "doesn't matter much" much implies some, thus it does matter b. "choose some purpose" implies there IS purpose My Case Taglines 1. Basic human needs 2. Goals & Vision statements 3. By what standard?
If God does not exist, then life is purposeless

==Definitions==God: The Supreme, Most Merciful, Most Beneficent Lord of universe as envisioned in major religions.exist: To have actual being; be realpurposeless: Lacking a purpose; meaningless or aimless== NOTE ==I believe God exists and life has a purpose. However that is not the subject of this debate. In this debate we will assume that God does not exist and imagine the implications.No semantic or syntactic argument. Burden of proof is shared. We agree to debate in good faith.== Introduction ==If God does not exist, then life on earth is just a random result of a random process. There is not special meaning to life. We are just some chemicals which happens to undergo some kind of process for a 70-80 years. What we do, or do not do does not matter much in this scenario.Of course, one particular person or community may artificially choose some purpose. The choice may be to enjoy life as much as possible. They may choose to reproduce as much as possible. They may dedicate life to understanding the universe. They might decide to exterminate some other civilization. They may kill themselves by collectively committing suicide. Or blow up the whole planet with nukes.None of this really means anything. There is no purpose to life.
Monkey D. Luffy would beat Uzumaki Naruto in a straight-up brawl

Note: This is based on the most recent chapters in both manga. Luffy would defeat Naruto because he is faster, stronger and more agile. I would like to begin by stating the abilities of both combatants: Luffy has eaten the Gomu Gomu no Mi, which has essensiallty turned him into rubber, allowing him to stretch almost any part of his body, has, as quoted from one piece wiki "extraordinarily inhuman strength, enough to break through stone and shatter steel with his bare hands, and can move at extreme speeds. " And that's not even counting the gears. Naruto, on the other hand, has the ability to summon gigantic toads, use the Rasengan, Kage Bunshin, Rasenshuriken, which will kill ANYONE it hits at the price of a broken arm, and the use of hermit mode, which, as said in Narutopedia, "Once mastered, Naruto was able to perfect the Rasenshuriken, so that he could throw it, and learn Frog Kata, the taijutsu style that uses the natural energy around the user to enhance the range and the potency of their attacks. "