BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US "bathroom laws", on balance, are justified and beneficial to society.

My opponent continues to post arguments outside the confines of DDO, despite me asking multiple times for him to stop that behavior. Considering that this is a debate I began, it does not seem unreasonable to ask the opponent to respect my wishes on the matter. I urge voters to float the conduct point to me. I'll be using a google doc to respond to the opponent's argument. My response may well be long and obtuse due to a lack of character restrictions, but my opponent has gone over multiple times so I am due to the same right. Lastly, as an FYI:Multiple fonts are supported in the rich text feature. These are located directly at the top under the "font family" button. Naturally, one has to switch to "rich text" to find these options, but rich text is pretty clearly marked directly above the text input field. My opponent would do well to familiarize himself with this mechanic, as it allows one to use whatever font suits your fancy. Not only are multiple font families available, but they come in a variety of different sizes depending upon how big you want your text.I hope that clarifies things. Here is the Google Doc containing my closing argument and final remarks. I'd like to thank the voters in advance for their patience, their time and their vote.https://docs.google.com...;
US "bathroom laws", on balance, are justified and beneficial to society.

I can't alter fonts in rich text more, I can only put Italics and bold but it always just makes my while argument italics or bold. Also, I can increase font size in a google document to make it easier to read as well as make bigger titles over my arguments. And if there are any issues with the google document someone can contact me and I can resolve it, so this isn't much of a reason to stay on DDO for debates. Also, I've found that when using the font that debate.org uses, I can sometimes lose a part of my opponents argument and not be able to find a part of his argument enable to respond to it. https://docs.google.com...
US "bathroom laws", on balance, are justified and beneficial to society.

I completed 106 debates so far so I think I'm qualified for this one. First of all bathroom laws allowing transgenders to use bathrooms according to their gender identity are completely ridiculous. The men's restroom is called the "MENS restroom" for a reason, just as the women's restroom is called the "WOMENS restroom" for a reason, if the idea was to use whichever bathroom you felt like, they both would be called the "use this one if you want restroom," but they are obviously not. If one day I decide that I am Governor of California because that is my "real identity," should everyone have to play along with my delusions because otherwise its discrimination somehow? (Seriously I don't even think liberals know what the word 'discrimination' means) If a maniac decides that he's a woman even though he's obviously a man, he is entitled to his opinion, and if he's not a danger to himself or others I see no reason why he should be locked up, but that doesn't mean that I have to play along.
US "bathroom laws", on balance, are justified and beneficial to society.

This debate concerns "bathroom laws" recently passed in the United States that involve allowing transgender people to use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. If it is not clear, I am taking the "Pro" side and will be arguing that these laws are justified and beneficial to society. Rules: 1. The scope of this debate should be limited to the contiguous United States along with Hawaii and Alaska. 2. Kritiks and purely semantic arguments are not allowed or tolerated. This is in place so that we can debate the issue at hand without becoming side-tracked by tangentially related technicalities. Ie, don't make a "nothing can ever *truly* be justified" argument. 3. Forfeits are unacceptable in all non-apocalyptic cases. 4. Burden of Proof is shared. The contender with the strongest argument(s) should win the debate. 5. Spelling/Grammar/Conduct points should only be granted if it is so bad as to impact the debate. 6. "Common sense" statements and facts do not need to be sourced unless their veracity is called into question. Note that each round has a max character limit of 10,000 characters and the contenders have 48 hours, not 72 hours, to respond to their opponent. Round Structure: I - Pro initiation, Con Acceptance OR Con Acceptance and opening arguments II - Opening Arguments OR Pro opening argument and rebuttals. III- Rebuttals (new arguments are acceptable) IV - Rebuttals (no new arguments) V - Closing rebuttals and statements (no new arguments) Note that Con has the option to present his opening arguments now or wait until Round 2. The former options allows Con extra "space" to argue their point, while the latter is the more "traditional" format. Lastly, note that you must have completed 5 debates to accept this challenge and you must have an ELO of at least 2,000 to vote. This is in place to insure that the integrity of the debaters and voters is maintained. I look forward to debating this topic with whoever accepts the challenge.
I am God, and you do not exist.

allow me to clear up my terms, my belief is that there is logically no way that one could "prove" their existence to anyone but themselves as that proof would require empirical means, which are fallible (you could just be a dream). However I can argue against your claim of godhood. Your prerequisites of godhood are that you would have to be "all powerful and all knowing, and I created the universe." let me tackle those one at a time. Created the universe: well if you were indeed the only mind and all reality was merely phenomenal (as apposed to noumenal) then you would indeed be the creator of your universe. All powerful: unless your experience differs from my (purported) experience, you can not change certain appearances of your experience, such as gravity, and the rules that define extension in space. All knowing: let me first to lay down a criteria for knowledge claims. For a claim to be knowledge it must be a justified, true, belief. Now, obviously if you were the god of your phenomenal world, your knowledge would be justified and true. And things you didn't know would literally not exist. so perhaps I could grant you this one. The reason I was mistaken and thought the argument would be a debate for an audience, is that you were making claims as if you were speaking to such an audience, "How can I support such a grand claim? Simple." this directed phrase implied to me that you were interested in others opinions, ironic as that would be.
I am God, and you do not exist.

Quite frankly, the voting audience means very little to me, especially in this debate. As for to whom you must prove your existance, I appologize if I was too equivocal, but I believe it really wasn't too hard to discern; I quote: "There is no argument that you can pose -to me- that can prove that you are not simply not a creation of my own subconscious." (from my original argument, emphasis added) Also, I dont believe my argument falls through at all. My argument was not about whether or not I existed; rather, it was that my existance and consciousness allows for the possibility that I am God, and that it was impossible for me to be personally proven otherwise.
I am God, and you do not exist.

While I do not object to your claims of skepticism about the material world, I can argue against your idea that I do not exist. But before I do, we must satisfy who I am to convince. I can convince myself of my own existence very easily "I think, therefore I am." therefore even if you are making me up, I exist and I am a perceiving being. That much I can prove to myself. I cannot however prove it to you, as you can only prove that you exist to yourself. Luckily it is the vote of the general community that I need. They can prove that they exist to themselves as well; but they cannot prove to themselves (conclusively) that you exist. Moreover your ontological status (the status of your existence) is equally suspect to mine, from the position of a third party reading this debate.
I am God, and you do not exist.

Yes, that's right. Not only am I God, but you don't even exist. How can I support such a grand claim? Simple. First, the reason I am God. I use the term God somewhat loosely, but mean it to suggest that I am all powerful and all knowing, and I created the universe. I think that's close enough. So here's the deal: all of creation is the product of my subconsciousness. Everything I see, feel, touch, everything I sense, is a fabrication of my mind. While this may seem impossible, just think: all of our senses can be broken down to nothing more than neurological reactions to various stimuli. Why, then, would it be so strange to think that our minds can simply create senses even though we are not in fact encountering them? And then, why could we not argue that every single thing is just some imaginary facade of reality, created by our subconsciousness? Existance is fake, and reality is just an illusion that I have fabricated. It is all just a creation of my mind. Thus, I am omniscient, because everything that can be known, every bit of data, any idea that can be presented, is in fact mine, or at least belonging to my subconscious self. Additionally, I am omnipotent, because if everything is the production of my mind, then I have the potential to alter anything. Now, for the fact that you do not exist. Along with everything else, you are a fabrication of my mind. You may say you have your own consciousness, that this can not be, but if you were to tell me that, it would really just be my mind creating the illusion of someone telling me that. There is no argument that you can pose to me that can prove that you are not simply not a creation of my own subconscious.
New Member Tournament: Aliens have visited Earth

Full Resolution: Aliens have likely visited Earth.Burden of Proof is on Pro to establish that it is more likely than not that aliens have visited Earth. Con's place is to find fault in my argument, cast doubt and establish why it is more likely that aliens have not visited earth. I will be using quite a few pictures and maybe some videos as evidence. Because of the BOP, Con will likely have no need to provide these, so no fault on him for that. Upon reading the debate, if you readers view that it is likely aliens have visited earth, Pro wins. If you view that it is more likely that aliens have not visited earth, Con wins.I plan to set up the debate around two main points: ancient history supports alien life on earth, and current alien evidence (NASA footage, etc.) The set up could be subject to change depending on how much space both of my arguments take up.Round 1: Acceptance, definitions, clarificationsRound 2: Pro- Arguments for ancient aliens Con: RebuttalsRound 3: Pro- Arguments for current evidence Con: RebuttalsRound 4: Pro- Rebuttals of con's rebuttals and closing, Con- Final rebuttals and closingDefinitionsAlien: Any intelligent species that was not born on earth; an intelligent species that is not human.likely: seeming like truth, fact, or certainty; reasonably to be believed or expected; believableGood luck to my opponent!
Bernie Sander's policies will not benefit the country.

I guess there's not much left for me to refute here. Allow me a moment to summarize both sides of the debate for our readers and potential voters: Round 1. Pro claims he will attack Sanders' policies. Then mistakenly cites the wrong number of rounds of the Debate. (This, the third round, is also the final round). Round 1. I, Con, accept and proceed to explain that I will argue why the Senator's proposed policies have beneficial qualities to the US. Round 2. Pro attacks Sanders' socialist ideology, and goes on a long rant espousing the virtues of capitalism. Something about cars, fast food, and technology. To be honest, I only skimmed his argument, because none of it seemed relevant to the topic. He also cited the crap out of wikipedia. Honestly, I find that to be quite lazy and even a little insulting to my intelligence. Round 2. As Con, I provide a sample list of the policies Senator Sanders has proposed and how they can be perceived as beneficial. Notice the word potentially creeps up again. I never attempted to argue the viability of these policies, I just intended to point out how they could be beneficial. Round 3. Pro contends that none of the policies will realistically be implemented, so they are not beneficial. Now, to my closing statements. Pro never resolved to argue the viability of Sanders' policies, and has yet to directly refute my claims that the proposed policies do carry beneficial qualities to the United States. While the viability of these policies is certainly another debate for another time, its impossible to positively assert that none of the policies in the Senator's platform would not be implemented. For all we know, Democrats could potentially win back Congress in 2016 and 2018, thus allowing some of Sanders' prized policies to flow through legislation. Add in the fact that the next President is likely looking at placing multiple SCOTUS judges, and the entire federal government could be leaning awfully left for a term or two. But that's not what this debate was hinged on. This debate was based on a false assumption that the policies of Bernie Sanders have no beneficial qualities to the United States. I have, in my opinion, shown the beneficial qualities of a selected sample of the Senator's policies. The only refutation was the assertion that they'll never pass Congress. To that I say, we don't know the future of the Presidential Race, nor that of Congress, so we cannot hinge our opinion on the possibility of these policies not passing legislation. What we do know is that at the core of Bernie Sanders' policies, is the welfare of every man, woman and child in the United States, and not the political interests of powerful corporations. To say these policies are not beneficial to the United States is simply a falsehood.
Bernie Sander's policies will not benefit the country.

1. Campaign Finance Reform: This goal is as idealistic as it is pathetic. Congress will never pass such a law. Con has not provided any evidence supporting the notion that this would ever happen. https://represent.us... Here are some studies indication that Congress does not care about what the bottom 90% of people think. The only people that can make a significant impact of there legislation is the upper class. This is a fact, and my opponent cannot dispute these claims. This is just one policy that will not benefit America, because it won't pass. 2. Make Colleges and Universities Affordable http://www.purdue.edu... This is just a citing of an abundant amount of people that ask congress to reform colleges and make universities affordability. Obama pushed for this, and failed. What makes you think Bernie Sanders would do better. Con has not answered this, and prefers to be naive about it. Another unintended consequences is that this will also put regulation on the private sector causing more money to flow into congress. Sanders will not be able to pass this policy, and therefore it will not benefit the country. 3.Attack income and Wealth inequality This will not only lead to a class war, but it the consequences will cause more harm than good. Private interests will donate more money in Congress, and congress would become for corrupt. Sanders will not be able to pass this policy, and it will not benefit the US. The main idea is that these policies will not pass, and add another 4 years of arguing. This is a fact. Congress will never pass the idealistic policies Sanders has to offer, and will result in a giant waste of money. Plus, he will create actually more crony capitalism. Taxing businesses and putting regulations on businesses will hurt small businesses. Sanders offers nothing more than pathetic idealism, and none of it will ever have a significant impact on America, because of the reasons just stated.
Bernie Sander's policies will not benefit the country.

My opponent has started this debate with claims to attack the policies of Senator Sanders, yet spends the majority of his first argument advocating for free market capitalism, with only passing mention of "Socialism". Also, I find your reliance on wikipedia quite humorous. Wikipedia itself readily admits they are not a credible source for research. Don't be lazy. Moving on, I don't follow how you argue that Food has "became but better" and then cite McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's as your examples. For clarification sake, I will now introduce some of the policies that are included in the Senator's platform and how they will potentially benefit the country. 1. Campaign Finance Reform The goal is to get big, corporate money out of the campaign process, which leaves candidates indebted more to these corporations than they are to their constituents. Having politicians that creating policy in the best interest of the people (as opposed to corporations) is ideal to the country, and one of the founding tenets of representative democracy. 2. Make Colleges and Universities Affordable This is a multi pronged effort to not only make college affordable, but also reduce student debt for those currently repaying loans and prevent the US government from making a profit on student loans. The effects of reducing the cost barriers and debt burdens for education will benefit the country by allowing more aspiring students to seek out higher learning and creating a more educated work force. 3. Combat Climate Change Sanders have numerous policies on the various means to combat climate change. Of note of these policies are the emphasis to accelerate away from burning fossil fuels and breaking free from the fossil fuel lobby. Again, attempts to curtail our exploitation of the environment while working to end our dependence on foreign oil (and the fluctuations in that market) will benefit our country today, but more importantly, prove to be extremely beneficial for our future generations. 4. Attack Income and Wealth Inequality As the Senator has been fond of saying, "There is something profoundly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent." The gap continues to grow as the majority of Americans see their dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. Addressing matters that affect the majority of the American population isn't beneficial to the country? I think not. These are a sampling, but by no means a comprehensive list, of the policies that Senator Bernie Sanders is campaigning on. The examples you've cited only affect the economy, though much of the gains have come at the expense of the environment, working class, and health of the American people. Now, you can choose to address how these policies are not beneficial, or you can choose to write another non sequitur argument favoring capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://isites.harvard.edu... https://berniesanders.com...
Homosexual marriage

Personally, I believe Americans should be proud to live in a country that is in the vanguard of promoting tolerance of people with alternative sexual preferences. This displays a social and moral maturity that is, sadly, not the norm elsewhere in the world. In most countries in the Middle East, Central and South Asia and Africa, for example, gays face either a lengthy prison sentence or execution if convicted of being a homosexual. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Indeed, even here in England, whereas racism is considered absolutely abhorrent, "gay-bashing" remains socially acceptable. For example, when Manchester United's pretty-boy midfielder Christiano Ronaldo is playing, the opposing fans all sing offensive songs about him such as: He's queer, he's bent, His arse is up for rent, Ronaldo, Ronaldo. …or: We want you, we want you, We want you and your boyfriend too. . http://www.freewebs.com... Similar racist chants would never be tolerated. In view of this, I believe my opponent is correct when he contends that rights evolve with public opinion. It may well be that one day in the future, the majority of Americans will take the view that marriage as a tradition or a religious ceremony is so devalued and irrelevant that gay weddings should be permitted. However, currently the majority of Americans do not hold that view and democratic principles dictate that the views of the minority, no matter how just or morally correct, should not take precedence over the wishes of the majority. My opponent made another salient point when he referred to the problem of closet gays getting married to women, then sneaking off to the public lavatories in order to make the acquaintance of some dirty, fat truck driver or a Catholic priest or the lead singer out of Wham! or whatever. Since that man would not be capable of fully satisfying the sexual needs of his wife she would naturally seek the company of real men on the sly, possibly transmitting AIDS to the heterosexual community in the process. In view of this, I believe there is a case for revisiting the notion that male homosexuality should be permitted at all, but that is for another debate. In the meantime, I affirm that democratic principles should be upheld and that same-sex marriage must not be permitted in states where the majority of citizens oppose it. Thank you!
Homosexual marriage

Thank you for clarifying my argument. 1. Traditionally, an elusive sexual relationship between two people is intrinsic to marriage. We generally hope that this relationship is satisfying to both partners, although this obviously is not a requirement of marriage, and throughout history women have often been chattel, or property. Thus the woman' pleasure was often of little importance. In modern America however women have equal rights to men in marriage. Rights are not intrinsic, but progressively developed freedoms that members of a society have chosen to mutually afford each other. Thus women, Natives and others are afforded the same rights as white men, which was not true in the country 200 years ago. It is reasonable to extend rights when the society has a whole benefits from them. I have not argued the law, but the right of people to be treated equally under the law, which we have afforded each other by the 14th Amendment. Thus it is reasonable for gays to have the right to marry a person of their choosing. This would benefit society, as it would encourage stable long term relationships, lower disease prevalence, and avoid stealth marriages as those you have mentioned. Answer this - assuming that you have a daughter, would you like her to marry a man who is a closet gay? How will you feel after he infects her with H.I.V, after he fools around on the side? It is the straight community which would benefit the most by gay marriage. And that's why, Ladies and Gentlemen, why I believe that homosexual mirage should be allowed. Thank you.