BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pluto is a planet

I found my opponent's case to be really weak. He is only using common sense as an argument, which should be disregarded. Rather than using evidence to support his bare assertions, he just simply uses his perception of a dwarf planet. Size is not the only difference. . http://lasp.colorado.edu... Here it shows the requirements for both a planet and a dwarf planet: Planet- 1. Is in orbit around a star, but is not itself a satellite* 2. Has sufficient mass so it is nearly spherical in shape* 3. Has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit* Dwarf Planet- 1. Is in orbit around a star, but is not itself a satellite* 2. Has sufficient mass so it is nearly spherical in shape* 3. Has NOT cleared the neighborhood around its orbit* So as you can see, there is more of a difference than just size. "A planet is defined as a rocky, or gaseous, spherical, celestial body, that orbits the sun, but does not emit its own light. A planet is also considered to be a celestial body that has sufficient mass, therefore, it has its own gravity that overcomes unyielding body forces, and is formed into a hydrostatic equilibrium, or round, shape. It is neither a star nor a satellite of another planet. A dwarf planet is also a spherical body orbiting the sun; however, to be a dwarf planet, it must be smaller than 3031 miles in diameter, but heavy enough to bear a resemblance to a planet. In addition, a dwarf planet is not big enough to have a distinct orbital path, nor does it orbit another object, like a moon. " These are some more differences between the two. . http://www.differencebetween.net... And if my opponent is going to use common sensense as an argument, I suppose I should as well. If scientists, professionals on astrology, etc. say that they are different, we should take their word for it. They have studied science and astrology for years/decades, thus, we should trust them. You on the other hand, don't seem to be a scientist, since you hardly mentioned anything scientific. You cannot apply a baby hippo and a full grown hippo being the same to a dwarf planet and a planet being the same. It would have been more productive for you to argue *why* they are the same thing. Trying to use common sense and how things work with animals does not apply to how dwarf planets and planets work in the Solar System. I also posted a mere contradiction to counter yours. Even without the evidence, the best case scenario for you is a tie, since contradictions do not prove anything, but since I showcased evidence, your entire argument has fallen.
Pluto is a planet

First of all, I hope there are no hard feelings in this debate. Second, I apologize if I have caused them. Third, here is my argument: (look at my comment) I see other examples of things being dwarf and stuff like that (and I know it's space science, but for the sake of my argument I say this), and they're still a TYPE of it. A pygmy hippo is still a type of hippo, a dwarf hamster is still a type of hamster, and mini golf is a game in which you hit a white ball with a club into a hole. See what I mean? I know Pluto is a dwarf planet, but that doesn't mean we have to make exceptions and go crazy and whatnot. So, obviously Pluto is a type of planet, a small, irregular one. I'm not trying to disagree with scientists here, by the way.
Fear and consequences in your life

Hello, That's a very interesting question and argument you proposed there, but I will have to disagree on the notion of the fear of consequences being 'the best way to manage people's behaviour in society'. My position on 'fear' is that fear only restricts one's thoughts and actions in avoidance of pain, it does not push human behaviour to thrive beyond that fear and as a consequence, fear does not manage nor move society towards a more prosperous future which usually requires human behaviour to be optimistic, confident and risk-taking, rather than being fearful. I argue that fear alone will not motivate anyone towards any particular success, they will only cause one to cave in to the fear and retreat to their safe-zones. It is the vision of overcoming fear and the vision of achieving greatness that will ultimately motivate an individual. One who is always in a mental state of fear will remain fearful, regardless to whether or not one is under the influence of a great manager or not. Therefore, I propose the notion that the 'best way to manage people's behaviour in society' is to understand how to control and direct human behaviour in accordance to whatever culture, company or place that is under your area of responsibility. Human behaviour can be easily directed once they are in the correct mental state, for example, a person who is about to enter a race against 10 other competitors must adapt a state of competitiveness rather than a state of having a relaxing sprint around a local park. To control one's state, one must control and consciously direct one's internal representations and physiology. Above all, I believe that the difference of management all comes down to the way in which one communicates to oneself and the actions one takes. As many people before me as said, fear is just false evidence appearing real, what fear can do is restrict you in everyway possible, what it can not and never do is help you overcome your state and take you through A to B, that requires courage, bravery, vision and the ability to take action.
THBT democratc countries should establish schools exclusively for LGBT

I propose this is untrue on four points: 1. Segregation will only further ostracize these people. For those who are vehemently against homosexuality having a gathering of a large group of them such as at a school will only be rounding them up for the abuse this is supposed to prevent. Even non-violent protesting will be disruptive to the coordination of these institutions. While the idea is novel and has optimistic implications within the reality of the world it is likely less than effective. 2. Separation will only further distance society from acceptance. For many people who are adamantly behind LGBTQ rights a great portion of them are genuinely friends with these people. To that end while harassment exists in the "outer world" I would propose that so does acceptance and that acceptance only comes from integration; when there is a distinct separation based on sexuality between persons involved there is no opportunity to build bridges and ensure the future of these persons as being accepted members of society considering there's no contact with them within school walls. 3. Stunting of growth will only occur. A person who is hidden away from the world is not the same as a person who is set aside and given a specific type of training. With that in mind "LGBTQ only" schools are the former and unhealthy because there is no individual growth for dealing with the real world; it is sheltering of the highest order just as with any form of sheltering and therefore is unhealthy and unwise. It is not to say that there should not be any Safe Spaces (http://safespace.glsen.org...) but instead that the Ivory Tower isolation is just unhealthy for all humans in general without good cause. 4. Sadness may be rampant. Since many LGBTQ persons come out when young, about teenage years to early adulthood, and require much support (http://www.psy.miami.edu...) so keeping them altogether may have a negative impact of instilling fear of leaving and putting them out into "The World" which as far as they can tell hates them by-and-large.
THBT democratc countries should establish schools exclusively for LGBT

because in the fact that Education is important enough for the LGBT's bright future as they improve their education, so we need to support and establish the school for LGBT. we need to provide a comfortable situation for LGBT because the average of LGBT students are usually got sexual abuses and usually homeless. we can provide the a professional conceleour in the LGBT school and quarintines them so they can study and doing ret usually arsearch without any hestition due to their past problem. if we put the LGBT people in a public school, the can't freely speak up because if they do it they will get somehow discrimination from their friends. and also we have to support a positive idea that LGBT people want to have a brighter future as they want to go to a formal learning center without any bullying cases.
The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16

"The same way the average voter is informed...through the media; television, newspapers, magazines and the internet. Schools are doing a better job of making young people aware of current political events as well. Many even hold mock voting on Election Day for the kids to participate in." The average voter has a job, children, is married, owns a home and a car, and makes monthly payments. Also, the majority of voters are out of school. Schools may be doing a better job, but these 16 year olds do not own a home and therefore do not relate to the candidate's economical view, and therefore do not really have an opinion because they are not active in a job that needs to support him/her, gas prices, the housing market, etc. If you are not involved in it, you do not need to vote. It would be the same thing as me voting for the driving age to be lowered in Alaska. Many voters for this year's election are more concerned with the economy than the war. "A job, house, children and car are not prerequisites for voting. There are many Americans past the age 18 who live at home with their parents and do not own cars yet vote. Also those few who do work have to pay taxes too so should have a vote on tax issues." No, they are not required for voting, but are a key in the economy. Although not all 18 year olds have a car or own a house, many more do than 16 year olds. Also, they are probably in college or getting ready to, and therefore don't depend on their parents as much. 18 year olds are also more grown up and mature. How many 16 year olds do you know that own a home or pay taxes or need the job to buy groceries and make payments. Not many. Many states are about to change the driving age to 17 years of age, in hopes of cutting down on accidents. If 16 year olds are barely able to have driving rights, do we really need to give them rights to who is in charge of our country? "If they pick their president the same way they choose their music and movies, I seriously doubt that they are going to automatically vote like their parents." Presidential candidates are not music. In some way, the child will probably be influenced by their parent's choices whether for or against it. In some way, their will be biased. Therefore, you will get a majority of votes that are due to the 16 year olds' parent's opinions and choices. "So if a 6th grade education is adequate for voting purposes, certainly the high school education most 16 year-olds possess would be more than enough to produce an informed voter." Then why is it illegal? They may have the intelligence, but not the experience. In order to really connect or relate to what the candidates focus on, you need to be involved in the things, and have experience. Most 16 year olds are not mature enough to make such a huge decision. They are too young, too immature, and not experienced enough. I am certainly not talking about each individual, but as a whole, this is a good description of the age group.
The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16

I will try to reply to some of your arguments briefly. "How are they informed? " The same way the average voter is informed. .. through the media; television, newspapers, magazines and the internet. Schools are doing a better job of making young people aware of current political events as well. Many even hold mock voting on election day for the kids to participate in. "Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! " A job, house, children and car are not perequisites for voting. There are many Americans past the age 18 who live at home with their parents and do not own cars yet vote. Also those few who do work have to pay taxes too so should have a vote on tax issues. "Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. " People over the age of 16 make stupid mistakes every day. As far as teenagers' brains still developing, there are alot of us who have brains that are deteriorating yet they still let us vote. "Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions. " If they pick their president the same way they choose their music and movies, I seriously doubt that they are going to automatically vote like their parents. The federal Voting Rights Acts of 1965 (42 U. S. C. ï¿½ 1971(c)) states that: "any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any election. So if a 6th grade education is adequate for voting purposes, certainly the high school education most 16 year-olds possess would be more than enough to produce an informed voter.
The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16

:) "Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. " Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the "real world" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.
Who would win: Mantis vs Yellow Jacket

This is the first debate I have created. Round 1 is acceptance. I am the side of the Yellow Jacket (Pro) and my opponent is arguing for the Mantis (Con) Rules: -Argue for the Mantis being more likely to win, no trolling -This is based on statistics and facts. Don't upload a YouTube video showing one of the fighters winning, though you may certainly upload a video of a Mantis fighting something else to prove that they are good at killing -We are making the assumption that they are close to the same size. There are 2,300 species of Mantid, I don't want to search for the one I am talking about. They are small and green, and close to the size of a Yellow Jacket. As for the Y low Jackets, I am referring to the ones in America. Please use common sense, don't turn it into a fight of some huge Mantis vs a Yellow Jacket.
Who would win: Mantis vs Yellow Jacket

Section 1: Praying mantises are born killers. As soon as they're born they start hunting small prey, each other if necessary.So they have a lot of experience hunting and fighting other insects. Throughout their years, they have attained a great number of adaptions. For instance. The mantis has an elongated thorax which acts like a neck as well as a triangular head which allows it to see 360 degrees. It also has 3 single eyes in each of it's two compound eyes. Another advantage they have is their forelegs which fold back like pocket knives. They both have spiny edges and sharp hooks at the end. Also, the mantis' coloring can help it blend in with its surroundings. In general sense, it can camouflage itself, making it easier to just lie in wait for it's next victim. Yet another advantage it has. Once it catches its prey, it bites the neck to paralyze the victim, then continues to eat it alive. You can't fight back if you're paralyzed now can you? No. You can't. http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu... Section 2: There's really only two things that a yellow jacket can do. It can fight, which it's only option is to try and sting its opponent, or it can fly away. So the Mantis is at an advantage, especially since it has camouflage capabilities. It will get the yellow jacket before it has the chance to see it, and the yellow jacket will have no options. In general sense. It has no way to win. I await my opponents argument.
blacks should be hanged

First of all, you don't have any evidence supporting your claim; no "because", no "due to", no backup sources. No opinions on why you think black people should be hanged. I think black people should have the same rights as everyone else because they never did anything wrong to us. White people did wrong to them. We made them slaves, treated them unfairly, etc. They shouldn't be hanged. Nobody should be hanged when the reason is judged by their skin color.
Donald Trump is NOT MY PRESIDENT

qwzx has accepted this debate with knowledge that this results in automatic loss, as dictated by rule 6. However, he's trying to argue his case that I was not specific enough on what exactly you will lose. Any person with common sense would be able to know that I meant he would lose the debate by accepting. But fine. I will accept your implication, as I did not specify what exactly you would lose. However, I ALSO did not specify that I was talking about Donald Jackleberry Trump, an imaginary character made up by me who has very close similarities to Donald J. Trump, but is nonetheless NOT Donald Trump. I did not specify which Trump I meant, so my mistake. The only reason I didn't put in his middle name Now that the implications are cleared up, here's my argument: Donald Jackleberry Trump is not my president because he is an imaginary characters.
Donald Trump is NOT MY PRESIDENT

Hello, I tend to stay away from political debates, but I just can't resist not speaking up. Donald Trump is Not My President. I did not vote for him, I do not share his beliefs, and he is not a representation of me. I refuse to accept his leadership at all. He is not my president. My opponent will be arguing that he IS my president (even though he isn't) for whatever reasons he or she may bring up. The structure of this debate follows, then the rules, and then definitions. Any breech of the structure or rules is forbidden, and I urge voters to take that into account when voting. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance and Definitions. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals to opening arguments and new arguments. Round 4: Rebuttals to rebuttals and rebuttals to new arguments Round 5: Rebuttals to the rebuttals of new arguments That may sound confusing, but read it closely and it's actually pretty clear. Rules: 1. Appropriate Conduct please, I don't want a mud-slinging. 2. No Ad hominem 3.No source spamming 4. Vote bombs must be reported 5. If you forfeit glitch, you lose. 6. If you accept, you lose. 7. Sources may come from Wikipedia if you choose 8. No additional arguing in comments. 9. A forfeited round done manually can be accepted, but is frowned upon by voters. By accepting this debate, the opponent also accepts all proposed rules without compromise. Definitions: 1.president: (often initial capital letter) the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States. http://www.dictionary.com...
Resolved: We would depower all superhumans. (Mr. Infidel's R1 Tourney)

This is for Mr. Infidel's Round 1 tournament, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...Round 1 acceptance.Topic:Resolved: We would depower all superhumans."We" are the United Nations in the world of Capcom and Marvel."Depower" By depower, I mean that we have come across new technology, an electromagnetic ray, which when fired at a satellite in space, would spread across the world, removing all powers from superhumans."Superhumans". People like superheroes or supervillains. People like spiderman, magneto, cyclops, venom, etc. Basically anyone with a special power that exceeds those of normal humans. (people with above average strength or intelligence would not count in this circumstance)BOP:As Pro, I will argue that using the EMR to depower all superhumans is the right thing to do, is the best decision. As Con, socialpinko will argue the opposite. That we would not use the EMR.BOP is equal and shared.I forsee that sources will not play a major factor in this debate, as this is a fun hypothetical debate.If you have any disagreements with any BOP or terms, then please PM or comment on this debate.
Atheism is NOT a religion

I would like to address some flaws made by the opposition as well as some somewhat supportive but incorrect information in the comments. Firstly, the negative has argued that to believe is to make you part of a religion. This is untrue for a number of reasons, most prominently the fact that belief in itself is not an aspect owned by religion, but the belief in a deity or supernatural saviour is. Of course no one is governed in their daily lives by religious doctrines but the fact that they are governed at all, even by some minuscule influence of religion, makes it separate from atheism. Religions do allow for individuals to impose their own interpretations of their doctrine onto their own moral beliefs, so long as the end result does not stray too far from the original concept. Never in my argument did I say that a theist may not partake in such activities as reading star signs, thereby leading me to wonder as to why czeekymonkey attempted a rebuttal. His third argument completely ignores the concept at hand, as stated earlier that belief can be common among both theists and atheists but the specific belief in a deity or superhuman influence is what separates the two. Finally, I would like to address the comment made in support of my argument. If one can truly believe that there is no other intelligent life in a universe that we haven't even begun to explore, where habitable exoplanets exist in nearly every few star systems and that there are millions and millions of these in each of the billions and billions of galaxies that could hold any thousands of different types of intelligent life, which don't necessarily survive by the same means as we do, then I believe that you sir need to re-evaluate your decisions.