BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are only 2 Genders

I argue that gender is not a set of discrete categories (man or woman) but a spectrum in which a potentially infinite number of gender identities can coexist. To say that "there are only two genders" would be as arbitrary as saying "there are only seven colours", all you are talking about is how many pieces we should cut the spectrum up into - obviously, between blue and green there are potentially infinite shades of aqua, teal, seafoam, etc etc. - whether we count each of these shades as discrete 'colours' in there own right is simply a matter of semantics - it has nothing to do with the 'essence' of the colours themselves. Likewise, when we divide the gender spectrum up into two categories all we are doing is making a crude approximation of the full range of gender variance - we are saying: 'people come in either blue or green', when in fact people come in teal, aqua and seafoam as well, the issue is whether or not we recognise that difference by giving it a name. I do not deny that, for the most part, humans are born with either XX or XY chromosomes, and one of two sets of reproductive organs. But even here we are making generalisations. No matter how rare, there ARE people who have some alternative set of chromosomes or some kind of indeterminate genitalia, but for those people we tend to ignore whatever difference they do have and lump them into one camp or the other. All of the evidence you have put forward in defence of the 2 gender hypothesis is simply a set of examples of how we categorise gender: we write either M or F on our babies birth certificates, we ask people to check an M or F box when applying for jobs, and we put M and F on the doors of our bathrooms. Society could have decided to divide gender up into 5 categories, in which case, maybe we would have 5 different types of bathroom, but instead we decided on 2. Just because society tends to divide people up into 2 categories doesn't mean that those categories reflect something out there in reality, it is just an arbitrary decision. To return to the colour analogy - just because we tend to divide up colour into 7 different categories (red, orange, yellow... etc etc) does not mean that 'there are only 7 colours'.
How to End Racism and Sexism

Of those who oppose racism and sexism (and other -isms and -phobias) or, At least, State they do, Some subscribe to one idea about how to combat these ideas and others subscribe to another. One idea of how to oppose racism and sexism is to treat all people of all races and sexes equally as if there is no race or sex at all. This will be the position I shall argue for. The other idea is that racism and sexism must be combated through various methods to raise the status of races and sexes perceived as oppressed or lower in position than other races and sexes. This shall be the CON positionDefinitionsRacism - prejudice or discrimination based on raceSexism - prejudice or discrimination based on sexDebate StructureRound 1 - Intro/Acceptance/Definition of termsRound 2 - Opening arguments/NO rebuttalsRound 3 - Further arguments/RebuttalsRound 4 - NO more new arguments/Rebuttals/Conclusion
There is no way to prove anything exists outside of our consciousness

Yes, physical things you can touch are things that exist. To ask those questions you are questioning reality as it is. But okay fine. Reality is not a single definition. It is simply something that everyone agrees upon. If there is nobody in the room, but everyone (including me) agrees there is a person in the room, then there is a person in the room. If everyone agrees a lion is an elephant, then that tiger IS an elephant. Nobody realizes how malleable reality is. If we agree that things exist, then they exist. Reality is simply an agreement.
There is no way to prove anything exists outside of our consciousness

Con's argument holds no water. The official logical progression would look as follows:: (a) The only thing one has direct access to is the contents of one's own mind (one's mental states). What one knows most certainly are one's mental states - one's thoughts, experiences, emotions, and so on. (b) Just because one sees an object does not mean that the object exists. One could be dreaming or hallucinating. There is no direct conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical. (c) The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person. The contents of one's mind are the only things one has direct access to. One cannot get "outside" of one's mind to encounter any other objects including other persons. Other minds are even more removed. The basic form of the argument: 1) My mental states are the only things I have access to. 2) I cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of my mental states. 3) Therefore, only my mental states exist. Regardless of whether you are alive or not, how can you prove your parents, brother, boss, or girlfriend even exist? How do you know they aren't projections of your subconscious? How do you know that a pair of VR goggles wasn't slapped on your head the moment you were born and everything around you is a simulation created by higher beings? Perhaps this is all just a dream? You're appealing to your default notion that this "feels" like reality. But how can you prove anything outside of your own consciousness truly exists?
There is an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being.

Since bookworld didn't respond, I think I'll take this round to say a few things about bookworld's discussion of free-will, which is off-topic for this debate. The precise meaning of free-will is all over the map in many discussions, so it makes debate about it difficult. However, it seems to me that omniscience and free-will do not mesh. Free-will, from the perspective of an omniscient (all-knowing) being, cannot exist. An omniscient being (let's call it "God", for brevity) knows what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow. For example, God knows that I will eat my Lucky Charms for breakfast tomorrow. Tomorrow rolls around and I look into my cupboard and see Lucky Charms and Post Blueberry Morning cereals. I think I'm exercising my free-will when I choose Lucky Charms, but really I'm not. It's an illusion of free-will. When I stare at those two cereal boxes, I "have" to choose Lucky Charms, otherwise God was wrong. And God can't be wrong, because Omniscient Beings are not wrong, by definition. If God exists, we have the illusion of free-will; just like a computer program "thinks" it is making the choices on its own, but really the software programmer knows exactly what the program will do based on the state of the machine.
There is an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being.

Hi bookworld, and thank you for taking on this debate. I purposely didn't use the word "God", my argument isn't necessarily theological, but it usually turns out that way. So for shorthand sake, and since you are using "God" in your argument, I will also use "God" interchangeably with "a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent." You say:< > My initial claim for debate explicitly excludes "free-will" induced suffering. Much of the beginning of your argument discusses free-will and its relationship to the existence of evil, and although interesting, I will move on to debate your later paragraphs regarding natural caused suffering. Even if I grant the "free-will" rationale you put forward, we still have the contradiction of natural caused suffering and the 3-O God. You say: <> The problem with this argument is that you are denying God the quality of "omnipotence." [Omnipotent means all-powerful: there is nothing that an omnipotent being cannot do, an omnipotent being has no limitations.] God could have created a reality in which these dangerous natural events do not exist. I'm not sure what you mean by "soul-enriching nature"... but that is irrelevant. An omnipotent being has the ability to provide both a "soul-enriching" experience AND a state of non-suffering caused by natural events. To deny that this is true is to deny the omnipotence of God. Any statement that begins with: "Yes, but God HAD to do this because..." denies the omnipotence of God. An omnipotent God is not limited to certain decisions. You say: < > My mother has never experienced the loss of a child... are you saying that she did not appreciate holding her children in her arms? I don't believe it, you should provide some evidence to back up this claim. Let me assume to generalize what you are stating: "Humans cannot experience pleasure without knowing what suffering is." I don't believe this is true. I don't believe that the experience of suffering is somehow integrated into the concept of pleasure/joy. (Perhaps you really mean "relief" instead of pleasure.) However, for the sake of argument, let's say that I accept your statement as true. Now we are back to the problem of omnipotence again. An omnipotent being, by definition, DOES have the ability to create a reality in which one can indeed experience joy without knowing pain. It would necessarily have the ability to allow someone to appreciate holding a child in one's arms WITHOUT requiring the suffering of experiencing the loss of a child. If you deny this ability of your God to create such a reality, then you are limiting the powers of your God, and thus your God is not omnipotent. An all-powerful being has the ability to create a reality in which humans do not suffer through natural causes. An all-knowing has the knowledge to use this power. A benevolent being would use the power and knowledge to create a reality in which there is no human suffering via natural causes. And yet, here we are, living in a reality in which humans suffer by natural causes. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being does not exist.
There is an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being.

The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being (attributes usually associated with the Christian deity) is negated by empirical evidence. The existence of non-human caused suffering is inconsistent with a being who is benevolent and can prevent that suffering. (By non-human suffering, I mean natural disasters, such as fires and mudslides which kill children.) Consider the example of a baby who suffers an agonizing and slow death by being burned by a fire caused by lightning. This surely cannot be a desired occurrence by any entity who has the power to prevent it and would also be deserving of the adjective "benevolent." As a thought experiment, imagine a being who has the power to prevent the agonizing death of the baby, and knowledge to understand the consequences of fire, ...yet does nothing to stop it. It is not reasonable to label this being as benevolent, by any normal definition of "benevolent." However, these types of natural-based sufferings do occur on almost a daily basis. Therefore I conclude that such a being does not exist. Note: "free-will" does not come into play here, this argument only takes into account non-human caused suffering.
Giant human skeletons are real.

Con: "You didn't say the nationalgeographic was wrong, are they now a liberal propaganda outlet too? How about this website, hoax slayer?" Yes. http://dailycaller.com... http://www.freerepublic.com... http://dailycaller.com... -- Con: "In conclusion I have shown from several sources that the photos are hoax. I have shown that due to the square-cube law these giants are impossible." Even if this were true, most of the pictures do not fit into Con's "debunking method". And apparently this square cube law does not apply to ants who are huge compared to their legs. -- Square Cube Law- Simple math to show it's incorrect. Mathematics ((X/2)x4))=Xx2 The typical square cube law states that when you double the size, you get 8 times the mass, but only on 4 times the footprint. So a 6' tall 240 pound man, scaled up to 12 feet tall would be 1920 pounds. So 8x the weight but only 4 times the footprint, makingt he relative weight twice as much PSI. Let's see what happens if you do this math: 6' tall, 240 pund man, shrunken to half scale, becomes 3 feet tall, and 30 pounds. Now, grow him in scale to 12 feet tall (4 times scale). He's now 64 times the weight (1920 pounds) just like he should be if he were just doubled in scale from normal. But now he's 64 times the weight he was, at 3 feet, and 16 times the footprint. So 4 times the relative PSI. The two maths don't add up. therefore the premise of the square cube law must be flawed. -- Besides, what's the difference between a giant T-Rex and a giant human? Con cannot deflect this point. The same Square cube law is used to say birds can't get huge, yet pteradactyles supposedly existed and were as big as giraffes. -- Now look on this link of Ambulocetus, the "walking whale", and notice the noggin on this badboy. Does he fall over and become victim to the square cube law? Apparently not... http://www.amnh.org... -- forums.macrophile.com/viewtopic.php?t=9102 http://io9.gizmodo.com... --
Giant human skeletons are real.

Claim: The square-cube law makes these giants impossible. Warrant: "How does the square-cube law pertain to size? Well, where it comes into play is that with an increase in size of an animal, there has to be a relatively greater in crease in size of its supporting structures. If we look at the leg bones of a mouse, a human, and an elephant and scale them so the lengths are the same, they might look something like this. Note that the elephant leg bone is considerably thicker than the humans and the humans is thicker than the mouse. What this means is that a Liliputian could not exist. A human shrunk down to the size of a mouse would have limbs that the human could not move. They would be too heavy. Giants like Paul Bunyan that stand 20 ft. high would also be impossible because their form would have to be so drastically changed in order to accommodate the increase in size that the person would no longer look human." [8] Impact: These giants would not look human. These skeletons are impossible. As for the newer images they are digitally altered. See the shovel, there's no end. They took a mastodon's remains and put a human body on it, digitally. The older findings have a lack of pictures. There's any number of ways a person could fake such remains. Making the skeleton out of wood, clay, or elephant bones. There is a lot of incredible occurrences in the world, like red giants, black holes, neutron stars, yet not everything is real nor credible. As for Snopes.com I find your attack on the website's credibility lacking. You use your personal anecdotal evidence about a ring against Snopes.com. Even if you are correct, everyone makes mistakes. You didn't say the nationalgeographic was wrong, are they now a liberal propaganda outlet too? How about this website, hoax slayer? [9] In conclusion I have shown from several sources that the photos are hoax. I have shown that due to the square-cube law these giants are impossible. Finally, I have stated several way the older photos could have been a hoax. Thanks for debate. 8. http://web.archive.org... 9. http://www.hoax-slayer.com...
Giant human skeletons are real.

"this seems impossible." So does a duckbill platipus. So does a walking whale that came from hooved hyenas, but that's what Darwinism says. http://www.enchantedlearning.com... http://www.amnh.org... -- Con: "the skeletons were altered digitally." Prove it. Some of the pictures have been around since the 1800's and were in newspapers from that time as well. -- Con: "I've hope I had proven that not only is such a giant race impossible." There are dinosaurs found with similar body types that Con accepts just fine. http://www.cnn.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... You can say something is not true or possible, but strange things exist and are real. Such as? Cockroaches can live and run around for weeks without a head. http://www.scientificamerican.com... Or that blind people see black. They actually see nothing. Black is an absence of light. They cannot see the light nor the dark. They see absolutely nothing. http://m.nautil.us... Or that dead bodies get goosebumps. https://www.quora.com... Point? Just because it's hard to believe or understand, that doesn't mean it is false. -- Con used snopes.com as a source, but we all know that snopes got snoped long ago. They are a liberal couple who look like they could use some baking soda on that tooth brush. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... I investigated more into snopes when they said that Obama's ring was not a shahada ring when I have met him in person and seen it. Having been raised as a Muslim, it's a Shahada ring. Snopes is a liberal agenda machine. --
Giant human skeletons are real.

Let's look at the sheer size first. In this link [1] the skull is about the same size as the entire human body. Assuming a five foot tall man, this skull is about five feet in height. Considering the human skull is already large compared to other primates, this seems impossible. [2] In fact, the African elephant is the largest land based animal alive today [3]. Yet, notice how the body of the African elephant and skull shape are much different. The largest human ancient complete skeleton is 6 feet 8 inches tall. [4] Instead, the skeletons were altered digitally. [5] [6] Finally, this is not a coverup. [7] Impact, I've hope I had proven that not only is such a giant race impossible, they wouldn't live to adult hood to reproduce simply because the body wouldn't be able to support the weight of the skull. Not only that, but the largest ancient skeleton is only 6 feet 8 inches tall. The pictures were digitally altered and the destruction of the fossiles was not a cover-up because it never happened. Thanks for the debate. 1. . http://universalfreepress.com... 2. . http://humanorigins.si.edu... 3. . http://www.liveanimalslist.com... 4. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 5. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 6. . http://www.snopes.com... 7. . http://www.snopes.com...
Giant human skeletons are real.

Wisconsin http://universalfreepress.com... http://www.southmilwaukeenow.com... Ecuador http://www.ancient-origins.net... Australia http://www.heraldweekly.com... Castelnau https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Missouri City http://therundownlive.com... Peru http://thetruthwins.com... America's coast http://helenastales.weebly.com... Fiji http://www.rense.com... Russia http://www.trendingnewsportal.com... India http://www.gazemyindia.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... Nepal http://www.viral-next.com... Odessus http://www.dailystar.co.uk... Arkansas http://thenephilimchronicles.blogspot.com... Texas http://gnosticwarrior.com... Romania http://www.metatech.org... California http://m.huffpost.com... Saudi Arabia https://es.scribd.com... http://grahamhancock.com... Italy http://eden-saga.com... Kansas City https://zamzummim.org... Fon du Loc http://www.cultofweird.com... New Zealand http://greaterancestors.com... Pennsylvania http://greaterancestors.com... Mexico https://books.google.com... Kentucky http://bonsaitreecare.info...- Ohio https://forum.davidicke.com... They probably evolved from chimps or hooved hyenas or possible a taka taka lizard. These are obviously from the common anscestor of squid or possibly even the prehistoric opposum tribe. It's a worldwide conspiracy....
Sould children be able to play rated M?Pegi 18 games

There are some states, mostly only in private areas. The only states where you can drink alcohol on premises are Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Also, I don't deem them wrong, just not necessarily something that a child should see. I don't think that the charges for it should be equivalent to murder or anything, but something to try and get parents to try and look at finding a different game. "One question, who should we go to [f]or rating how appropriate a game is, the government or your parents?" The ESRB said "The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings provide concise and objective information about the content in video games and apps so consumers, especially parents, can make informed choices."(http://www.esrb.org...) I wasn't saying the government is controlling what we can and can't see (which with the whole NSA scandal, I guess they are) in video games, but rather that they are giving us the tools to make an informed decision on whether or not we should buy those games for children.I would also like to compliment you on your points as they were all well said and raised good questions. You really made me think. This was my first debate, and I like to think that it went well. My regards, CorpulentBatman
Sould children be able to play rated M?Pegi 18 games

First of all, there are states that allow parents to buy alcohol or an under-aged drinker. The policy that you are following is fining parents for doing things that you deem are wrong. One question, who should we go to or rating how appropriate a game is, the government or your parents? There are rated M games that hold educational value. In a game called Saints Row 3, you are tasked to decide between blowing up a building and not having to pay taxes, or keep the building and base a militia out of it. This is critical thinking at it's finest. And the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. The minorities are always protected in US law.
Sould children be able to play rated M?Pegi 18 games

I do agree that parents have the right to choose what a child sees in most instances. But it is illegal for parents to buy things intended for adults for their children(like alcohol and tobacco). If the game is intended for adults could you not say that it is wrong for parents to buy this type of stuff for their kids? Also, I agree that chess and flash cards do help to increase the critical thinking skills of children, there are many E, E10+, and T games that enhance problem solving skills.(Puzzle games like Portal, Little Big Planet, and even Minecraft causes kids to think creatively.) You also say that some children are more mature, but the majority of the kids that age are just that: kids. The needs of the many out way the needs of the few. (And I doubt you could get out of a charge of underage drinking by telling the officer "Yeah, but, like I'm reeaally mature for my age")
Sould children be able to play rated M?Pegi 18 games

The debate is not about whether or not the children will be harmed, it is about if the parents should purchase the game for the kids. By using your criteria the children should be playing chess and using multiplication flash cards all day. Also, some children are more mature than their age really shows. A child could be 16 but have that maturity of a 20 year old. In this case, would the parents get fined. Currently it is not illegal for a child to play a rated M game but to purchase one.
Sould children be able to play rated M?Pegi 18 games

While it is the choice of the parents whether or not they let children play mature games, in most cases games are rated "M" because they have some form of graphic violence, alcohol use, drug use, and strong language. While in most cases children don't mimic the violence part of games, the language and usage could turn their life path in a bad direction. I don't think that if cops find out a kid is playing an "M" rated game that they or the parents should be arrested, but perhaps some form of punishment would be necessary such as a small fine. This would at least deter parents from allowing children to play these games. While I'm not against video games, I do think that they can have a lasting effect on a developing child's mind which could lead to some bad decisions later on in life. Games designed specifically for kids challenge their minds and get them to complete puzzles and such to increase their problem-solving skills and cognitive development. In conclusion, while I do not think it should not be considered a federal offense, some form of punishment towards the parents would cause them to think twice about letting their children see usage and to hear graphic language.