BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
To be any part of LGBT is to have a mental disorder.

yyou can put a dink in a dink now! its 2013 now we have a islam gayblack president and even the pope is gay! dont you realize that everyone is gay and its entirely L3gal! thats saying likke my islam is banned because things of autism and gayRIGHTs not Wrongs!!! so tell me why shouldnt things of when i have like my parents be a mental disorder for you???? bigot!
To be any part of LGBT is to have a mental disorder.

I will be arguing that the statement the title says is true.For round one please present any definitions you wish to establish I will start the debate in round two.Mental Disorder: any of a broad range of medical conditions that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.
Gavrilo Princip was the most influential person of the 20th Century

Gavirilo Princip was the most influential person of the 20th Century because was the spark that lit the world of fire in the form of the most horrific war up to that point. Princip's actions led to not one, but two such wars as well as the idea that in the modern era a poor nobody could effect everyone in the world's lives. He effectively shaped the idea of a modern terrorist. Princip's story could also be the single greatest reason to believe in fate, and thus changed philosophical debate.
CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

For as much work as I put into the format of this, and for as much work as I put into my case, I never really got a quality debate out of it. Hopefully that will change. This is a CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) Debate with specific rules and format. If you intend to judge/compete in this debate, please read up on the general guidelines found in the tenth post here: http://www.debate.org... ... Use comment #10 (last one on the first page) as the updated guidelines to judge and/or compete in this debate. ============================================== Scenario: The United Nations has finally obtained power and demands that all nations combine into a singular nation. Failure to join will result in trade sanctions with the rest of the world and will be an enemy remainder of Earth. Every other nation has agreed to sign on to the open trading and a universal treaty. "Country X" (for convenience shall be referred to as Sparta) has the strongest military in the world and the most advanced nuclear and biological arsenal in the world. There is not a piece of military weapon that Sparta does not own in abundant supply. Furthermore, Sparta has 30 million highly trained military soldiers to defend their 70 million population. What is the most net-beneficial option for Sparta? PRO: Initiate World War III , completing the following two objectives: -Objective A: Enslave a necessary percentage of the population of the world to make Sparta have the highest quality of life to date. -Objective B: Kill the remainder of humans. CON: Complete the objective for world peace and join the United Nations. ============================================== Instead of the 4 round format found in the tenth post, this will act as a 5 round debate. Round 1 is simply posting of the topic and accepting of the topic. If you accept this debate, you also accept the format of how to debate it. Furthermore, you will not post any sort of argument in your first post. Just say good luck or something. ============================================== Good luck to my opponent. And may this debate be enjoyable for both sides.
The youth of America are straying away from what it means to be an American.

Sadly in our current society sex, electronics, and selfishness have come to dominate our current generation of teens. Teens today place a great emphasis on themselves and look to better their lives with material things. Ipods, sidekicks, and xbox360s have all become apart of household tradition without any real effort made by the teens. How many parents can say that they bought their child an electronic because of good grades in school? The more likely reason that these things were bought for them is that they wanted it and everyone else had one. What does it matter if everyone else had one? The immortal words of President John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," have been reversed. American teens want so much and have been taught to expect to give very little. The values of American teens in general are deplorable. Vulgarity, disrespect, immaturity and laziness have triumphed for the most part in infiltrating their values. My argument does not concern every American teenager. These characteristics are not present in every teen and I acknowledge that. The fact is that the majority of teens living in America have the characteristics mentioned earlier. Thank you and I look forward to a response so that the debate may start and so that the topics may be further elaborated on.
The youth of America are straying away from what it means to be an American.

the youth of today may from the other peoples view not give anything back or if they do little, however the youth are going to have to live with there choices if they get pregnat they will have to live with that, if they are spoiled they will have to learn to work when they are old enough to live on there own, if they want to get a ipod or somthing after they move out then they will have to buy it on ther own
The youth of America are straying away from what it means to be an American.

well...i would have to agree with you that education makes a big difrence in life and how you do things however when you stated " American's have a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. Strong education and strong morals are what have created the most successful Americans" i was also wanted to point out that the enviroment you grow up in also helps deturmen what you do with your life. the nice things about being an american is this i have the right not to stand up for the pledge of allegance which i dont. i have the right to choose to say what i want about the government. i have the right to not be qoute un quote patriotic. so these kids who you call sefish and dont give anything to there country or have no sense of right or wrong i have to put down my foot sir and say they are just exercising there belefes and rights that they have under the constutuion as they see them for there life
The youth of America are straying away from what it means to be an American.

Thank you for joining the debate jester108 First I would like to say that the reference I made towards parents and gifts was meant to illustrate my point on how some teenagers place a large emphasis on "self" and none on the good of the country. I understand how the reference did not represent your upbringing. I am sorry for any misconceptions; I am new to this site. If you did notice however I did make a reference to how my assertions were not made to represent my belief in the entire teenage population. I was not attacking anyone. Your comment was well voiced but that does not change the fact that you have not contributed any statement about the topic in this debate. Proving me wrong in no way proves you right. From first hand experience it is amazing to see the lack of interest in our country's history and government from today's youth. The media has played a large role in straying teens away from traditional beliefs and values. An example of this would be the channel MTV. The topic of sex dominates the programming because the producers know it is what teens want to see. Ask a random teen what historic event took place on June 6th and you will not receive an answer. You yourself may not think it is important but it is. Thousands of American service men gave their lives to preserve the freedoms which we all take for granted. Today when asked about the Iraq War many teens immediately say they are against it because people are dying. In my search I was not able to find one teen who could have a competent discussion with me about the positive and negative effects of the War. Our generation must be ready to sacrifice once again for those freedoms and sadly many of these teens do not see this sacrifice as beneficial to them so they choose to ignore it. American's have a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. Strong education and strong morals are what have created the most successful Americans. Keep in mind however that success is not determined my money. Without proper education how will teens ever understand the consequences of their actions before it is too late. Pregnant teens, drug addictions, and criminals are consequences which have occurred to frequently in this generation. Thank you once again Please argue your stance
The youth of America are straying away from what it means to be an American.

the youth of america are straying away from what i means to be an american!!! well your argument is all about kids getting things from there parents because everyother kid had one...this has nothing to do with straying away from being and american, you sir are not even arguing your own topic. i may be a punk but im not against my government and i sure dont get things just because every other kid had one i have to buy what i want so argue your topic
Dance Is A Sport

Regardless of what my opponent thought she was referring to, the debate parameters were set to debate "Dance is a sport", not "Competitive Dance is a sport". There was no explicit debate rule or definition which set "sport" to mean "competitive sport". Therefore, my opponent has attempted to change the resolution mid-debate. Seeing that my opponent has tried to debate a different resolution, my arguments negating have been left wholly uncontested, and thus the resolution stands negated.
Dance Is A Sport

My opponent points out that my debate was unfair. I did not mean to offend them, and if they would like my arguments to be ignored, theirs are also useless and shall be ignored.The reason my debate does not say competitive dance" is because when somebody says dance, competitive dance comes to mind. Not everybody is so specific. The debate was not changed in my aspect, as my argument has been referring to dance as competitive dance since the beginning, If my opponent would not like to participate in this debate, that is their decision.
Dance Is A Sport

My opponent, perhaps upon realising that the resolution has been negated beyond repair, has decided to unfairly change the resolution from: "Dance is a sport" to "Competitive Dance is a sport". This is extremely unfair and atrocious conduct, as it essentially cheats the opposition out of the original resolution, and obviously gives my opponent a huge advantage, given that my contention revolved around dance not being defined specifically as competitive dance (the latter definiton was NOT specified in the debate construction).Also, in the case that you do not agree that my opponent's conduct is dreadful, what my opponent has done is also a logical fallacy called Moving the Goalposts [1]. How this occurred was that my opponent changed the metaphorical goalpost from proving that "dance is a sport", to the easier to prove "competitive dance is a sport".So, on the grounds of atrocious conduct in changing the resolution mid-debate, and the illogical aspect of such a change, you should completely disregard everything my opponent argued this round.Please extend my original arguments and completely ignore my opponent's off-topic attempt at an alternative resolution defence.Reference[1] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Dance Is A Sport

Why is dance a sport?This debate may require the definition of sport.(www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&es_sm=93&q=sport+definition&oq=sport+definition) Sport (noun): "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."I truly understand the reference to the word can. When I started this debate, I was referring to competitive dance specifically. Hopefully that will help this debate continue! The question shall now be rephrased:Why is competitive dance a sport?(www.definition-of.com/competitive+dance): "(Noun) a sport in which competitors perform dances of different genres, based on requirements of a competition"There are two ways to prove this:1. Competitive dance is described as "A sport" in the definition, proving it is a sport2. The definitions can prove each other (i.e. "Competitive dance" and "Sport" will prove each other)Definitions: Sport: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." Competitive dance: "a sport in which competitors perform dances of different genres, based on requirements of a competition"1. Sport: "An activity involving physical exertion and skill": Competitive Dance: "A sport" Do sports require physical exertion and skill? Yes.2. Sport: "which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment": Competitive dance: "competitors perform dances of different genres, based on requirements of a competition" The "sport" definition says it must be competitive. The competitive dance (though right in the name) definition says that the performers/dancers are competitiors, who perform based on requirements of competition.Does competitive dance require physical exertion? Yes.Is competitive dance competitive? Yes.Competitive dance requires physical exertion and is competitive, therefore proving that it is a sport.
Dance Is A Sport

Thank you, broken_doll, for instigating this debate.Negative CaseA1: Dance only *can* be a sportThere is semantic problems with the resolution, in that it pertains to an absolute. Let me explain. Dance, according to Google's dictionary, is defined as:"a series of steps and movements that match the speed and rhythm of a piece of music" [1]Whilst it is possible to define dance in slightly alternative ways, this fair definition does not have the inherent qualifier of competition (and even if you disagree with it being fair, I show later how some forms of dance do not have the competition aspect), which brings me to my negation of the resolution: dance *can* be a sport if there is a competition aspect, BUT there is not *always* a competition aspect, hence dance is not always a sport. You will find that my opponent's definition of what a sport is requires the components of:1) Involving physical exertion2) Skill3) Individual or team competes against another or others4) For entertainmentNumber three is the issue, because dance can occur WITHOUT competition. An example of this is a theatre production involving dance, like the Bangarra Dance Theatre which perform Aboriginal pieces. Clearly, there is no competition aspect of which was highlighted as required by my opponent in order for an activity to be considered a sport, hence dance is not a sport, in this instance.ConclusionDance most certainly can be a sport, but it is not always, hence the resolution of "Dance is a sport" cannot be fulfilled.Reference[1] https://www.google.com.au...[2] http://norpa.org.au...
Dance Is A Sport

I think that dance is a sport because it requires what any other sports have. Dance is a sport and an art, but many people do not think that it is a sport. A sport is defined as:"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."Does dance require physical exertion?Yes.Can a dancer be individual or in a team?Yes.Do dancers compete against another or others for entertainment?Yes.Dance is a sport.
Abortion is Wrong

I know may of you think that abortion is morally wrong, and many of you think that it's up to the woman to choose. But morality is never going to beat the law. An American citizen (the woman in this case) has more rights in America than the non citizen (the unborn child). And to take her rights away under a banner of "it's the moral thing to do" is flat out wrong. The judges saw this in roe v wade, and years later, more and more Americans are realizing that taking a citizens rights away to protect a non citizen is unconstitutional. Yes it may be moral, but it certainly isn't freedom. And I don't think any woman is going to bend when it comes to an issue like this. They either align themselves with the law or their religion. (Because morality is a direct product of religions). The decision alone rests with the mother, and if she chooses not to abort, then fine. But don't try to take her right away and tell her it's moral at the same time.
Abortion is Wrong

You probably shouldn't base your entire argument off the law. This is why. We as humans legislate morality, morality meaning: The way things ought to be or we ought to act. So we create laws based on what we believe is right or wrong. In 1972, the court for Roe v. Wade determined that the most moral decision to choose was to allow abortion deeming that it should be the woman's choice. So our laws are based on our beliefs about morality at the time they were created. This poses a problem: We are constantly trying to get closer to perfect morality, which means that we are constantly changing our beliefs about morality and in turn changes our laws. So saying that because a court over 40 years ago thought it was morally permissible to have an abortion, doesn't mean they were actually right. Now many people know that abortion is killing an unborn child, but they've been told not to push their beliefs onto others. This is very politically correct, but very logically, morally, and ideologically wrong. If we were to see a murder or rape taking place, it would be morally wrong to stand there and say, "I don't want to push my beliefs onto that person." The morally right action would be to go over and rip the rapist off the woman or subdue the murderer with every fiber of your strength and then do whatever necessary to keep them from continuing. So if abortion is murder (The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."), which abortion is, then like I just clarified, we should try and stop this murder by any means necessary. In this case, the means is by legislation. So this is my argument and rebuttal in a sentence. Abortion is morally wrong because it kills an innocent child, and because law is legislated morality, it should be illegal to have an abortion (unless the mother's life will end because of the child).
Abortion is Wrong

Ok. Since you are on the side of abortion is wrong, I'm assuming you are coming from a moral and/or religious point of view. The latter will get you killed in a debate instantly, but we can cover that in more detail later. So let's start with the 2 premises. I can't scientifically prove that an unborn person is alive and human. And you will never hear me say otherwise, because it's fact. But where you change from fact to opinion is when you say that an unborn human has constitutional rights. In order for the US constitution to protect a person, they must either become a citizen, or be born in the US. A unborn person therefore is not protected by the laws or rights of America or her citizens. Now once that child leaves his or her mother's womb and breathes in American air, then that citizen is entitled to every right the US constitution grants it. Until that time however, the child's allegence is to no one and in turn, is not protected by any nation. I know this will cause a lot of outrage amongst religious viewers, but hopefully they can separate their private beliefs from the public policy of abortion.
I am TheRealGod

There are elements of many different religions in me. As stated in Islam, Judaism and many other religions, TheRealGod has many names [1][2]. One of my names is Uniferous however my profile also indicates that I am TheRealGod as one of my other names. It is unnatural for a God to go under 1 name since by doing this a God allows people's ignorance to stop their connection with him. If a person is unfamiliar with the ONE name of a God then there connection with him is diminished. This is not the case for a God with many names. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
People Should Retain the Right to Bear Arms

Snorlax is a badassThis point is completely true. However if it weren't for his bear arms making him a fatso, he could be a bigger badass.Flowers destroy bad guysAccording to my opponent, flowers burn bad guys. This wouldn't matter however. Bad guys are immune to heat. Technonlogy and magic mixMy opponent thinks that technology and magic mixing means that magic and science work in complete harmony. This is completely false. There is nothing magical about that crap.Also, there is nothing magical about the matrix. The matrix is based on real life, not fiction. No magic involved.I've made my case.Bear arms cause pain, humiliation, and obesity. People have no right to them.
People Should Retain the Right to Bear Arms

FINAL ROUND!!The obesity: what I'm trying to say that is in reality Snorlax is this amazing guy who can take huge hits as well as dish out humongous lazers that will destroy any bad guys in their sight.Flowers: bad guys get destroyed by flowers, don't you know? "AHHHHHH THEYYYYYYYY BURRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNN" My opponent think magic and science don't mix. What about the magical bullet? Yeah, see? Magic and bullet. Bullet=gun=technology. Magic=magic. Living in perfect harmony. And of course, there's also The Matrix itself. source: http://tacomagic.wordpress.com....Rampage, American's untrustworthiness? Only the most trustworthy of the trustworthy can get bear arms. You need to be noble and awesome. It's like... ...only the Chosen One can pull it out!! Of course, there is more than just one who can get bear arms, but the Voodoo witch can tell who's responsible and who's not. She can smell you out!In conlusion I have thoroughly explained how the process of gaining bear arms work, and how well it works. Everyone should get bear arms! Good debate.VOTE ME.
People Should Retain the Right to Bear Arms

First off, Pro didn't even refute the obesity argument, so that still stands. The only point that the video really made is that snorlax can shoot lazers. That's irrelevant to his bear arms and his obesity they provide him. Wrong Hands Argument My opponent tries to say that bears can smell when someone is evil and will decline them arms if they intend to do nefarious things with them. However there is one flaw in this case. Bears love the smell of flowers. An evil man could simply dress up in flowers to coerce the bear into giving up his precious arms. Crippling Species ArgumentMy opponent claims that because a voodoo witch could insert bear DNA into you to give you bear arms, then bears wouldn't lose their arms. This does present a flaw however. Voodoo witchcraft is magic. DNA transmutation is science, and as we know... Magic and science don't mix. So Pro's point is invalid.OP Rampage ArgumentThis is another argument Pro didn't address. How can people be trusted with the power of bear arms? Especially white Americans. They are just to powerful to leave in the power of all those rednecks. Who knows what they'll do.