BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women Are just As Good As Men

Yet she was dubbed a "saint"? Explain this to me. - She was called a Saint by Pope Francis. If she was not a Chrisitian she would not have been deemed a saint. You asked me to define the words above; here they are:- Didn't I say define good? Without defining it I don't know what you mean when you say women are just as good as men. The ones you did define were self expalantory. Did not definition like the subjective word good. No, It does not stop them from dying, It merely postpones them from dying. Everyone will die sooner or later. - So doctors should not help the sick. We should allow anyone with a serious injury die because they are going to die eventually. The logical conclusion would be when someone gets injured that is enough reason to kill them off because they are going to die anyway. She IS first a Christian then a doctor. That is correct! - How is this a good thing? When treating for the sick modern day Christians try to save their patients instead of telling them to change their faith. The doctor has a duty of care to his patient. Mother Teresa is a bad doctor. Save their life- This is what I meant. It has not been proven people has souls. Where is the soul? The heart if so nothing can detect it which as far as science knows we do not have a soul. Souls are not proven to be real and you had to prove it existed for Mother Teresa to even save it. This is about men and women being equal, Not about Marie Curie- So the individual does not matter? It does not matter what discovries she had or what she had invented it only matters if shows that women can finally win Nobel Peace Prize. This is about the women and men not indviduals but you just used Marie Curies to point out the first woman to win a NPP. If women were as good as men and how many NPP's have they won compared to men? It does not come close so they are not equal in the quantity side. I mean they can play sports like men. - Lebron James vs the best female basketball player. Lebron James would win. Why do you think they have seperated games? Because men have more testoerone, On average have a higher muslce etc. If they they played sports like men why aren't they playing with men? They can be just as tough as men. -Muscle mass is higher on men. researchers determined that men had an average of 72. 6 pounds of muscle compared to the 46. 2 pounds found in women. - from the sourceSource:https://www. Livestrong. Com/article/246036-how-much-more-muscle-mass-does-a-male-have-than-a-female/About proving the existence of the afterlife, That will be another debate. Please join me then. :)- Okay but you did use souls as your argument so you had to justify using souls but you didn't. BTW, You've been very fun to debate with! It made me think :)- Don't worry about it.
Women Are just As Good As Men

You said: "It was mainly people misleading on what she actually does" - So, Millions of people mislead on what she actually did, Yet, No one (besides this guy) could figure out what she was actually doing? Everything she was doing was wrong, Yet she was dubbed a "saint"? Explain this to me. You asked me to define the words above; here they are: Caring for the sick: Helping the sick get well. It means exactly what it says. orphaned: those without parents. widowed: a women who's husband has died. You said : Do you know that curing people stops them from dying? No, It does not stop them from dying, It merely postpones them from dying. Everyone will die sooner or later. She IS first a Christian then a doctor. That is correct! You said: She did not save them if they are dead. Define "save". Save, As in, Save their life, Or "save" as in, Save their soul? If she did not save their lives, Then she certainly saved their souls. You said: What she invented is more important than winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Does it really matter what she invented if she was the first woman ever to win it? This is about men and women being equal, Not about Marie Curie. You said: Men and women are different. I totally agree! They are in everyway different! I never said that they were the same, I only stated that they can do what men can do. Again, This is about men and women being equal, Not about Mother Teresa and others. Men and women are different. And when I say they are the same, I know and you probably do too, That I don't mean things like bodily stuff, Like, Birthing babies. I mean they can play sports like men. They can be just as tough as men. They can carry heavy things, Be just as smart, And just as hard-working as men. They can also be just as lazy and stupid as men! I am in no way saying that men and women are the same, Or that women are better than men. About proving the existence of the afterlife, That will be another debate. Please join me then. :) BTW, You've been very fun to debate with! It made me think :)
Women Are just As Good As Men

I am going to use the same source again. Please view it to understand what Mother Teresa was actually like. Source: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=2uxtcy4FpN8Well, If this is true, Then how did she become famous? - It was mainly people misleading on what she actually does. Instead of directly care for the sick she makes sure they become a Christian before they die. Who were the misleading people you might ask? Christians. Not all but enough to mislead people on what actually was going on. Caring for the sick, Orphaned, Widowed, And so much more- Define these words and watch the video. It states that the working condition were awful. How could you care for the sick while working in bad safety conditions? Well, It doesn't matter so much if they get cured because they are going to die anyways. - Do you know getting cured stops them from dying. Instead of caring for the sick she used her popularity to change people's faith. Whether or not you believe in it she did not save the patients because they die and some that do live which wasn't because of Mother Teresa. She is first a Christian then a Doctor. What's cruel is letting them live without knowing God just so they can die and go to Hell. - Found out you believe in God. She did not save them if they are dead. Can you prove the existence of the afterlife? I am sure I can prove the dead that Mother Teresa neglected to save. Marie Curie was the first women EVER to win a Nobel Peace Prize- Is this really it? What did she invent? That is more important then winning a Noble Peace Prize. She was a very famous chemist. - It is good and all being a chemist but is that all she did. Did she invent anything or find any new discoveries? Girls can do what men can do and they will do what men can do if they put their mind to it. - I thought this was about women not girls. Men and women are different. The source below what men cannot do and what women cannot do. Men and women have different brains. Men produce 20 to 30 times more testosterone then women. To name a few. Look through the source to find more but I think I have given you enough examples why men and women are different. Women cannot do what men can do and men cannot do what women do. One example is giving birthing another example is ejaculating. Women Are just As Good As Men- Can you define Good? I am getting two different examples of it. One is it is good to be a religious fanatic. It is also good to win the Nobel Peace Prize. I rather know what she actually did then what she won. Source: https://www. Scienceofpeople. Com/gender-differences/
Women Are just As Good As Men

Mother Teresa was one of the best women in the whole world. You stated that "she used her popularity to spread the word of Christianity. " Well, If this is true, Then how did she become famous? Caring for the sick, Orphaned, Widowed, And so much more. You also said that she is more worried about them joining her religion than saving them on their deathbed. Well, It doesn't matter so much if they get cured because they are going to die anyways. That may sound cruel, But its really not. What's cruel is letting them live without knowing God just so they can die and go to Hell. If they are saved, Then they go to Heaven when they die and live for all eternity. Marie Curie was the first women EVER to win a Nobel Peace Prize. People never thought that a woman could win a Peace Prize, But Marie proved men wrong. She was also the first person- not man, Just person- ever to win the Prize twice. She was a very famous chemist. I don't need to be specific about my statement. It means exactly what it says. Girls can do what men can do and they will do what men can do if they put their mind to it. Except, Of course. Touch their penis. Obviously.
Women Are just As Good As Men

From the arguments you have seen. Provide evidence so that I can state my stance on them. If it was literal I would disagree to. Lumping all women is not a fair way of treating women. They should be judged individually. Mother Teresa? - She was a religious woman who used her popularity to spread the word of Christianity. I don't mind it but when it takes precident over caring for the sick then I have the problem. She is more worried about if they join her religion while they are on the deathbed instead of saving them. Marie Cuire? - Don't know a lot about her so can you care to elaborate on why she is as good as men? Let's stick to two. So that It does not become a lot of writing for me to rebut to and for you to portary your stance. "They can do everything that men can"- How about touching their penis? Yes I know you did point it out that there are circumstances that they are different but you stated an absolute statement and contradicted it. Because girls can and they wil- Be more specificCome on, Bring on the HATE! - I don't hate you. Basically provide more detail in your points and say how Women are just as good as men. So that the title is not misleading. Source: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=2uxtcy4FpN8 (Mother Teresa part- delete gaps if there are any in the URL)
Women Are just As Good As Men

I have seen many arguments on this website where people are saying things like: "Women are lazy. " "Women are not smart. " "Women are not hard - workers. " I strongly disagree. What about Mother Teresa? Marie Curie? Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller, Clara Barton? Are people saying that these amazing women and many more are dumb, Lazy crybabies? People are messed up. I'm messed up, You are messed up. But NO ONE, And I mean NO ONE is more messed up that people who say that girls can't. Because they can. They can do everything that men can. EVERYTHING. Well, I mean, A few things, But only because they don't have the same bodies as men. Because girls can and they will. Come on, Bring on the HATE!
Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over

(1) No, my opponent still cheated. My opponent is incorrect that the website will not let you post more than 8,000 characters. I have verified with Airmax that there are at least *two methods* of doing this. In addition, the fact that my opponent *did* in fact post over 20,000 characters is proof enough that such methods exist. If it's not possible, how did my opponent do so *not only* in my debate, but in his debate against Zaradi as well. Furthermore, if he didn't cheat, why is he "giving up" as soon as he is caught? Why has he posted no additional arguments? Vote him down for cheating *and* continuing to lie about it when caught. He didn't say, "my bad, you got me; just look to the first 8K characters of my argument. " He is claiming that my Microsoft Word "character count" is wrong and that the 20,534 characters from his previous round is actually only 8K characters. He's being absurd, and his doubling down on his cheating, rather than admitting it, means he knows full well what he did. In addition, note that my opponent's *entire argument* was plagiarized word from word from this website: . http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com.... Perhaps that is why my opponent has not engaged in any rebuttals. He doesn't know how to respond to arguments, absent copy and pasting. (2) My opponent loses because he has dropped every argument I have made. Extend my argument the duty of *confidentiality* is different from *privilege. * Confidentiality is what is problematic in my opponent's case. Extend my argument that the *optics* of the government forcing an attorney to testify against his own client is just more than the Constitution can bear. Extend my argument that the government has *more than enough* other tools to maximize truth-seeking, without invading the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship. Extend my arguments that my opponent's position is unconstitutional because it denies defendants *effective* assistance of counsel and indirectly forces them to self-incriminate.
Islam promotes segregation, violence, and unequal treatment for women.

I appreciate how you want to impose your interpretation on text, but there are rules of interpretation and this scope of interpretation is closed, and someone (like you) cannot come and invent new method.Any verse(s) of Quran must be interpreted (first) in the light of other verses and (second) in the light of hadith and sunnah. Segregation - Again your attempt to justify your argument on segregation is fallacious. Up till to pre-WW1 years, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and members of local African religious groups lived together with Muslims, and they all had freedom of religion, their own court of law. And if you study the history you will find non-Muslims in the high ranks of politicians in Muslim countries. My point is either all Muslims throughout the history were wrong, or your interpretation is wrong. And oldest churches and monesteries are in Muslim countries."Awliya" issue, there are tons of commentaries on Quran, at least read one of them.Punishment - I hope you don't disagree with the concept of punishment (example, should rapist be punished?). And your argument here is appeal to emotion. And hell is paradise for masochist. :)9.123 - "The crux of your argument about the the Byzantines is still controversial among scholars as to whether or not it even took place. I would never cite something that does not have major scholarly approval. You forgot to add that after the "battle", Muhammad's followers believed there to be nobody left to fight and wanted to sell their weapons. Muhammad wouldn't allow this and believed that there will always be a need to fight." Please cite sources, and produce your evidence for these claims. Saying Earth is square is not proof for Earth being square."War is the fuel keeping the Quran's fire from going out" - OK, there are 6236 verses in Quran, and Hell mentioned 77 times (same number with Paradise), there is no mention of word "sword", and when you ask for violent verses, they bring up 5 to 10 verses (and always same verses). Actually this proves that you haven't read Quran. (Bring up any word and I will count it for you)Woman - If you read the Quran, you will know that, there are some verses only men mentioned, and some verses only women mentioned, and some verses both mentioned. Is it unequal treatment. I say Quran is unjust to men more than it is unjust to woman (just for sake of argument), because it says, woman can spend her money as she wants, but man first have to spend it on his family and household. So, let's cry out for men rights.
equality that leads to wealth

The equality gap should be growing at a rapid pace in the USA. It sold out the manufacturing base that held jobs that paid good wages for little skill. As millions of immigrants are added every year with millions still unemployed, we see a flooded labor market. That means people that have to work will have to work for less. Keep this in mind when voting for a democrat that is pro immigration, that is if you work. If your rich keep voting for the party that leaves you with options on your illegal employees, while stabbing the majority of us citizens in the back.
equality that leads to wealth

We also hear a lot of propaganda about miracle drugs and everything else under the sun. Class warfare has become necessary. Your challenge is simple. Once a country becomes "Socialistic" those who were at the bottom would inevitably have a higher standard of living than they had before becoming "Socialistic". Jobs are being sent out of the country because of Capitalism and those Free Trade Agreements you spoke of, not Socialism. There is a very scary FTA trying to be pushed through right now. I want you to clarify your idea on why there is a growing inequality gap in America.
equality that leads to wealth

We hear a lot of propaganda these days with the class warfare politics. I challenge anyone to prove a society that becomes socialistic doesn't in fact lower the standard of living for everyone in that economy. I think it is one of the primary reasons there is a growing gap in equality in the US. The growing gap is because manufacturing jobs are now priced out of the country. Free trade made millions useless in the US. Yet the country had no policy to reduce the population accordingly.
Experts Tier round 2: Is there any hope that the US can eliminate its national debt in our lifetimes

There are to be no semantics. Since both of us are young (low to mid 20's) "our life time" will reflect the time it takes to die of old age. For the math of this debate, we shall use 70 years (two people living to their low to mid nineties might actually be low-balling it, but it perfectly reasonable). It is entirely possible that both of us could die in the next 5 years, but we shall go with 70. The spirit of this debate should be clear and any attempts to compromise the spirit of the debate with semantics (such as "kids can't hold office, therefore they should not be able to run for office" or other semantics) to bypass the spirit and purpose of the debate shall be considered auto-forfeits. The first round is for acceptance. I will begin in R2. No new arguments shall be allowed in the final round. My opponent shall ONLY be allowed to post new arguments in their final round to address any new arguments that I present in mine. If I only expand upon current arguments, then my opponent may not post new arguments (it is recommended to point to where the arguments were done in previous rounds to show that they are not new). Thank you and let's begin.
Fascism Is Good

The militaristic stance that fascism promotes drove Ancient Rome into conquoring the West and part of the East. It has influenced the intire world and its language is thhe building block of all of the western languages. It made Rome the wealthiest nation that ever was. Fascism was based off of the polocies of Ancient Rome, and we can see how great Rome was from our history books. America has the best military in the world and are surrounded by week nations such as Mexico which are ripe for the picking. Germany was not fascist, it was nazi. There is a difference. Nazism says that the different people should be killed because they are not even people, but fascism says that the different people are still people and should not be killed as long as they submit to the rule of their new masters. Furthermore fascism does not even deliver the "Transcendence" of class that it promises. Far from merging all classes into a harmonious whole fascism accentuated class differences. This is where fascism failed in Italy. If true fascism were to be established and the classes were ebalished then it would work and the country would be strong. They were not 'chummy' with Americans because they were at war with America. R1: This is true to some extent. We are a nation of immigrants, but the people who have influenced this country the most is white people. We fought the wars, we ran the traide, we fought the indians for the land. Its ours. Our culture is that of western European nations not mexican nor asian culture. We should pretect our heretage before it dies. R2: We are referring to America not Finland. People in Finland have different ways of looking at things then people in America. America has a high crime rate, so in order to decrease crime we should increase the punishment so the people wont thing its worth it to break the law. Fascism guarantees this. R3: When fascism gets in power the people will trust their leaders. There will be no civil war. R4: Germany was Nazi, NOT FASCIST. Even though we lose brilliant minds we will still have brilliant minds and also we will have a better educational system wich is another thing fascism promotes. In Conclusion, FAscism is good enough for the USA.
Instant Check Mate - Disclosure of crminal/ health records

I came across this website and I'm horrorized. Even if we can admitt the right of the people to be informed about crimes, is it acceptable that there is zero restriction to the difussion of highly personal information? As opposed to the copyright that at least allows to restrisct the information to its knwoledege but forbids us from copy it or reproduce it or commercialize it. I accep the monopoly of the State to make these records public, but the manipulation of this date in hands of unregulated organizations is scary
Ladies...keep them toilet seats up!

Well played, sir, well played. A lively debate about bathroom politics if ever there was one. I hope we can debate more in the future ;) I will close my last post on this topic with these final remarks. Toilet seat & lid down: *More convenient *Safer for children *Keeps dogs out *Keeps bacteria & germs from spraying when flushed * Everyone uses the seat down Toilet seat up *A safety hazard *Looks unpleasant when messy *One will not 'fall in' *Not everyone uses the seat up
Ladies...keep them toilet seats up!

To you Vesper...I say, " touch"." I had not thought of the tiny tots roaming about exploring. In such cases, I would agree, a toilet lid should be down. However, perhaps it should be lifted up at night in case hubby or sonny-boy comes stumbling in at the wee hours of the night, half asleep, forget...and miss the intended target? As for Fido...a dog's stomach is designed to be extremely rugged and they get so thirsty! Have a heart. :-) Still, in restrooms with heavy traffic...I must maintain my original position. It was a pleasure meeting you Vesper and debating this all-import issue. ~wink~ Thank you, Steve
Ladies...keep them toilet seats up!

You are welcome, Sir Stevereno. Your rebuttal was well worded and logical. #1 was, for me, your best argument. The up position may in fact, appear to be safer. Here is my counter argument. I look forward to your response. 1. Women, young children, the sick, infirm, & the elderly use the seat in the down position. Only men & boys use the seat up. Since many more people use the seat down, in my opinion the down position is much more convenient for everyone. 2. In the battle of the sexes, men will sometimes experience the wrath of their annoyed spouse, sister, aunt, friend etc. for leaving the seat up. I think that leaving the seat down after using the toilet will make the bathroom experience better for everyone. 3.Dogs drink out of the toilet, toddlers play in the toilet, its just nicer to have the seat & lid completely closed afterwards.
Ladies...keep them toilet seats up!

Vesper, thank you. You make some valid points here. In fact, better than those I thought I'd see. Your point #2 (no pun intended) , being., in my opinion, the stronger of the three, but, I wonder, have you ever considered...? 1. If the toilet seat down is the neutral position?. and I think I should concede that point. Then is it the safest? If in fact, it really isn't, then the safer position should out-weigh the more convenient one. In my view the "up" position is safer. 1a. Now, I must point out that my point of view here is based on a toilet that is used regularly by both genders. 2. Urine splashes, vomit, blood and hairs (virus/bacteria) are far less hazardous on a toilet rim, than a toilet seat. 3. Have you ever sat on a wet toilet seat? I know I have and it isn't fun. Sleep-walkers, children, lazy, intoxicated and sick people all have "to go" and can't always get the seat up in time...even if they care to do so. Public unisex toilets and parties are notorious for this!