BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being Trans is a mental illness

I explained the logical justifications for adding religion into the argument, So you cannot tell me that I'm not allowed to use them. My statement stands. Dysphoria is when your body image doesn't match up to your body. Your comment about people telling they feel like a certain is anecdotal and doesn't prove anything. If I say that I feel like a potato, Is that evidence for potato dysphoria? No, Because you can't feel like a potato. Dysphoria can happen after a gender confirmation surgery, But this has nothing to with the mindset they had prior. In the case, The mental illness would be caused by the surgery and not their belief about their gender. So your argument is a non sequitur because there is no link between the two. If gender is defined by one's genitals, Then you can't feel like your genitals. If gender is defined as a state of mind, Then it can technically be a spectrum, But only because the brains has a spectrum. So in this case, Gender and brain state would be the same thing and would have nothing to do with genitals. When people say they feel like a gender, They talking about gender rolls that society imposes and they don't know it. But nothing in this descriptions makes it a mental disorder and any case of a trans person with a mental disorder, Every case can be shown to attribute the disorder with something besides being trans. Just let the people have their clothes and surgeries and stop telling them they're crazy please. If I can smoke cigarettes and skydive, Then I see no problem with people getting strange surgeries, Even if I think it's a bad idea. Because my opinion in the matter is irrelevant to them and it should be as well.
Being Trans is a mental illness

Christians believe that God is sending them to heaven or hell. Are they mentally ill? No they're not, They're just mistaken. It's the same case with transgender. They think that they feel like a certain gender when it's impossible to actually feel like a gender. This is not an illness, It's the result of societal constructs warping our perception of the truth. Through the ages, We've told society that men have to work, Have short hair, And not show their emotions. We've told women that they have to be emotional, Wear dress, And be homemakers. This is the root cause of being trans. Women are not emotional, People are emotional. Women don't wear dresses, People wear dresses. So when a man wants to wear dresses and make up and be gentle, Etc. In his mind, He think he was suppose to be a woman, Because society has convinced him that's women behavior. But society is wrong. Now there might be people that have a mental illness and the illness becomes a factor in them picking up a trans lifestyle, But that's not the same thing. Plus it's extremely rare. The gender confirmation surgery's also happen because of societal pressure because people are making the person think that's the ticket to being the gender they want. But again, They're only chasing that dream because society keeps telling the genders how they're suppose to act. So really the whole problem is on the Christians and other old worldly power structures that keep imposing gender norms on the society. Let the people dress and act how they want and stop calling it a mental illness just because you don't know why they're doing it.
Being Trans is a mental illness

Well since you didn't respond, I'm going to make an educated guess and say that you either: changed your position, Realized your argument was bad, Don't take this debate seriously, Or you just wanted to preach about your intolerance. I'm going to filibuster for a second and point out that transgender people are not hurting anybody and they can think just as logically as us. They can feel emotions just as good as us. There is no reason to say they have a mental illness just because you don't agree with how they're living their lives. Christian values and societal pressure is what cause them to be this way in the first place. If everybody would just stop imposing gender roles and societal norms, Then we wouldn't even be having this debate. Because you wouldn't even know what a trans person was. They would just be people because you're not defining them by what they wear or how they act or what they believe. Judge people by their actions only and do it on an individual basis and if their actions don't hurt anyone, Then just keep walking and leave them be. Good debate, Although I would like to have seen more contention out of my opponent. I feel like you barely pushed back.
do u think the government should legalize drugs because they sell em legally why can't we

It's ultimately the persons responsibility to properly administer the medications prescribed to them and yes, some people still have the chance to abuse them. However there's a difference between the person ultimately being in the wrong for consciously choosing to abuse medications prescribed and the government legalizing drugs for recreation. The matter is doctors can prescribe medications to help cure illnesses. Drugs however still have the tendency to be super addictive, have severe withdrawl and overdose effects and can severely impair the person taking them. Whether for recreation or not this practice could get very deadly. When it comes right down to it, people can abuse medications but that doesn't give the right to legalize dangerous drugs. Let's compare it to the Death penalty. You can legally execute someone effectively murdering them, but that also doesn't mean that we should legalize murder because of that.
do u think the government should legalize drugs because they sell em legally why can't we

However, when the government sells the so called "drugs" they are used for medicinal purposes. The government however shouldn't legalize and support the selling of drugs that are scientifically known to be dangerous for you, to be super addictive, for people to become intoxicated to extreme extents all under the purpose of recreation. When the government sells drugs, they do so for medicine. If you are sick you can get better. Legalizing something such as cocaine so that people have an excuse to get high would just result in them becoming more readily available and in turn more people becoming addicted, intoxicated and yes a higher death rate due to that.
The Earth is flat

"And as for your argument stating that the photograph could have been forge, may I ask you, what benefits would NASA gain from claiming false information about the world's shape?" Con Taking credit for something they didn't accomplish. "One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere." Con Filtered perception. The Earth is flat. The vast majority of people believed this for a very long time.
The Earth is flat

"For a very long time people have considered the Earth to be flat. Why throw away years of culture and tradition based on a few pictures using advanced technology that very few have seen with their own eyes?" Are you seriously implying that you would rather believe people from hundreds of years ago, who have never been in space, rather then the austronauts today, who HAVE been in space? Who have actually SEEN Earth from a distance? Wouldn't it be more ideal to believe the people with evidence, rather then the people without? And as for your argument stating that the photograph could have been forge, may I ask you, what benefits would NASA gain from claiming false information about the world's shape? One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.
The Earth is flat

I. Establish the Earth is flat For a very long time people have considered the Earth to be flat. Why throw away years of culture and tradition based on a few pictures using advanced technology that very few have seen with their own eyes? Have you or anyone you know personally seen the Earth is round, and not just a photograph? If you ever read hitchhiker's guide the galaxy you will learn the concept of filtered perception. Quite simply are senses often deceive us. Bias, prejudice, etc. Just use your favorite search engine and search "optical illusions." You'll find many. II. Rebuttal of Con's arguments "Every picture of Earth ever taken shows only a circular shape, and the only geometric solid which looks like a circle from any direction is a sphere." Con Yes, but this is only a picture. The picture could have been altered or forged. There is also some doubt whether we landed on the moon. "10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax Josh Fox" [1] http://listverse.com...
The FDA Does More Harm Than Good

1. My first point is philosophical; if the FDA is concerned for the public health, why does the FDA allow you to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol until you're sick, but then restrict your access to medicines that can make you better? 2. There is a revolving door between the FDA and the biggest pharmaceutical companies. http://www.cptech.org... This fact, along with the fact that FDA mandates have the power of law, makes the FDA an attractive target for drug company lobbyists, leading to regulations that protect the big drug companies at the expense of the patient. Here are just 3 examples of this corruption in action. Example 1: Suddenly banning safe, widely-used drugs that were never 'approved' after the FDA gained expanded powers in the 60s. http://www.techdirt.com... Example 2: Trying to regulate dietary supplements as drugs, even though there is little evidence they are a health concern. http://knowledgeofhealth.com... Example 3: Warning General Mills that they saying Cheerios lowers cholesterol makes it a drug, putting it under FDA authority. http://online.wsj.com... Example 4: Allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold while keeping safe, effective, cheap alternatives off the market. http://www.lewrockwell.com... 3. Many drugs the FDA has approved turned out to be dangerous, some so much that they have since been taken off the market, in some cases after being in use for decades. http://consumerjusticegroup.com... 4. "Since 1964, the total time required for drug development, from synthesis of the molecule to marketing approval, has more than doubled, now topping 15 years. And it's not just the incredible delay that's problematic: Drug companies, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, spend almost $900 million to bring a drug to market. Thirty years ago, the cost was a mere $138 million (adjusted for inflation)." http://www.manhattan-institute.org... The huge amount of time necessary and astronomical costs associated with developing new drugs keep countless effective drugs out of the hands of patients and cause drug prices to skyrocket. In addition: 5. The FDA doesn't allow terminal patients the right to try unapproved drugs, even when they'll die without them, anyway. The FDA could be improved by banning ex-drug company employees from working in the administration, or at least in any regulatory position. But as long as the FDA retains the power of law behind its mandates, drug company lobbyists will line up to try and influence their decisions. A better idea would be to make FDA rulings advisory instead of mandatory. That way, people can trust the FDA if they want and only buy FDA-approved drugs, or people can use unapproved drugs/treatments at their own risk. Another alternative is to get rid of the FDA altogether. The following article describes why the FDA is unnecessary. http://mises.org...
moral law

If I am correct you are not talking about moral laws as in "such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason"(Merriam-Webster). If you are arguing that you should always follow your conscience, I believe you should not because different things are seen as moral in different cultures and your conscience develops based on your culture and experiences.
moral law

I will say again,The moral law is,in my opinion a violation in two areas. Firstly if the transgression was accidental or purposeful.In this way the other person or victim recognises the moral law as broken.Secondly we know what we will do,what we wont do,but also there is the question of the ought to do.If a person knows they ought to do and they ignore this inner (morality) law,they break it ,we feel the sting in our conscience.
moral law

Which set of moral laws are you referring to? For example, Christians would point to the Bible for their moral laws. I believe there are no moral absolutes. I also believe society has improved over time. For example, there is now an international police force, NATO, whose goal is to limit the violence of wars and protect human rights. A better analogy is if a person is attacked and fatally shoots their aggressor and your moral law says killing is wrong. Was the moral law not broken?
moral law

Why do you believe there is no moral law?A better society developed over time?Cant you see things are getting worse and worse as we transgress the moral law. Let me pose a question:If you walked past me and tripped over my foot,and it was a total accident,would you be angry with me? obviously not it was accidental.The moral law was not broken.If you walked past and i shoved my foot out on purpose to trip you up,then you would be angry,you see I broke the moral law.
moral law

Let me say,the moral law does exist.We know what we will do,what we wont do.There is another element,what we ought to do.What we ought to do for me is the key to morality.we all adhere to our own moral standards,but we all know deep down what a person should do.Is it right to save one man at the expense of many men,or too save many men at the expense of one?If a person breaks the "ought to" moral code of conduct he will notice a kind of death in him,the man for a time will taste an in er death..
KU has a great basketball team

very simply you are seem extremely bias for Kansas Jayhawk basketball. thus your bias attitude and love for them as a fan would somewhat expect anyone to express you thinking that they are amazing. i am not totally taking away from the fact they may be "amazing" but in the fullest extent of the word i cannot agree they are amazing. amazing means one or all of the following according to a dictionary; amazement, great wonder or surprise. but to be less formal and blunt, an amazing act in the world of college basketball would be to win the college "March Madness" tournament and Kansas has yet to do that in the past 4 years, to include any coach or player on the current roster. most laymen to experts about college basketball or basketball as an overall sport would agree with my previous statement of wining the tournament. i will even give you some credit to the degree that your team is good by most definitions of good, this year and the last but will disagree with you about amazing...this year, so far and last year as well!
We should substanially increase funding for the Early Head Start program

Thanks, Pro. CLARIFICATIONS: Early Head Start (EHS) is a federally funded community-based program for low-income families with infants and toddlers and pregnant women. It's goals are to promote healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women; to enhance the development of very young children; and to promote healthy family functioning [1]. ARGUMENTS: 1. The United States of America is supposed to be a capitalistic society. Bertrand Russel once said, "The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." In other words, it is wrong to penalize working people monetarily via taxes to help those who are less fortunate. We already have taxes that contribute towards social programs such as medicare, medicaid, unemployment, social security and welfare. Impoverished individuals can utilize those programs; expanding on another social program is unreasonable. 2. The tax payers cannot afford this program. Right now our debt is so high that we should be cutting back costs (unnecessary programs) and lowering taxes. Increasing funding for this endeavor would (a) cost the working people more money, (b) not help us work toward our goal of eliminating debt, and (c) take away money from other programs and causes that could be more useful to society, and that are more prone to support the capitalistic and democratic ideals that this country was founded upon. 3. Even if one agrees with the purpose of EHS, given the current situation in the U.S., it might not be the right time for the program to *substantially expand* as the resolution specifies. In that case, if you want to keep the program - fine - but to significantly increase its impact and thereby costs at this time would be a bad idea with negative and damaging economic repercussions. We simply don't have the money! REBUTTAL: 1. Pro suggests that more people graduating = more high paying jobs. However, the Unemployment rate in this country is so high that the idea of a new generation entering the market place and finding jobs is highly unlikely. 2. Pro submits that the children who receive aid from EHS might go into the military; however, there is no evidence for this claim. This entire contention rests on a "maybe" scenario. 3. Pro writes that EHS benefits the economy; however, does not provide evidence that this is case. I would like to see proof that we receive $10 back for every $1 that we put into to the program. Until then, this point should not be considered. 4. Pro's fourth contention is the same exact premise as his first contention. Void it. SOURCE: [1] http://www.ehsnrc.org... Back to Pro for now...
We should substanially increase funding for the Early Head Start program

Con 1-If we increase funding for the EHS program now,we will expand the range of eligible kids, we will be giving kids a higher chance of graduating, after that they could possibly move on to high paying jobs that benefit the economy, or possibly the military Con2-Military readiness is vital to preventing a global war, like I explained in my first Con, the graduating children will possibly go into the military, if we expand the range of eligible kids we are increasing the number of troops we receive, giving us a even stronger military, and decreasing hostile attacks. Con 3- The EHS programs benefits the economy, the EHS program posses a 1-10 dollar back program, so for every dollar we put in we get 10 dollars back, we can successfully fund this program without having our economy collapse. Con 4- EHS helps solve for poverty, If we expand our range of kids, we could give kids in poverty access to this program, thus increasing their chance of graduating High School, giving high paying jobs that could pull them out of poverty. -Currently the EHS program need 360 million dollars in federal funding to expand eligibility Range -My definitions- Substanially-of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com... I look forward to debating my opponent
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

it seems that my opponent has never seen any debate between theist and atheist. please watch debates between richard dawkins, sam harris, christopher hitchens and theists and you will find that atheists raising these points:1. christianity and islam are failed religion. atheism is the only way out.2. christianity and islam have violence side.3. uses of theory of evolution against creationism.4. difference between science and atheism true scientists must be atheist.you can see these points in many lectures of richard dawkins, sam harris and christopher hitchens etc.
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

1. it is based on failure of one religion, christianity. may be another, islam. but there are other religion which are left untested.such as buddhism, taoism, zen, shintaoism, wicca, shamanism etc. Atheism is not based on counter-Christianity, it is simply the absence of belief in Gods.2. it is based on darwin's theory of evolution which is not an absolute truth. there are many rooms for criticism in that theory.Atheism is not based on the theory of evolution, this false presumption sickens me.Evolution is completely unrelated to atheism.3.atheism survives on attacking the violence part of christianity and islam. it totally ignores the peaceful part of those religion. Atheism does not survive by attacking Theism.It survives by defending from Theism.4. the existance of great scientists who believe in god such as copernicus, francis bacon, galileo, descartes, max planck, lord kelvin, issac newton etc. proves that there may be a supreme power to run the world.How so?
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

1. it is based on failure of one religion, christianity. may be another, islam. but there are other religion which are left untested.such as buddhism, taoism, zen, shintaoism, wicca, shamanism etc. 2. it is based on darwin's theory of evolution which is not an absolute truth. there are many rooms for criticism in that theory.3.atheism survives on attacking the violence part of christianity and islam. it totally ignores the peaceful part of those religion.4. the existance of great scientists who believe in god such as copernicus, francis bacon, galileo, descartes, max planck, lord kelvin, issac newton etc. proves that there may be a supreme power to run the world.
Can The Apple Company Survive Without Steve Jobs

I accept.ArgumentThere have been several examples of companies surviving after their founder left or died or heyday ended. For example here are examples in the technology field:1. Microsoft was still in operation after Bill Gates resigned. "Microsoft's revenues are still massive, and its core products still permeate the computer world with monopoly-level market share..."[1]2. IBM had its heyday a long time ago, but it is still out there, making innovations, though less-known.[2]3. MySpace's peak was in 2006, but even after the arrival of Facebook, the company survived.[3]That should really be enough. Apple is not immediately going to crash and burn now that Jobs is dead. Apple's revenue and popularity may decline; however, this is a recurring phenomenon, there's nothing unexpected. Apple will still survive, and may even make a comeback, in the same way as Coca-Cola after New Coke or Jack-in-the-Box after the bacteria incident.[4]Sources1. http://www.thedailybeast.com...2. http://techland.time.com...3. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com...4. http://www.divinecaroline.com...