BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump's Ban on Transgendered People was The Right Move

Thank you for the definition, that is a very important part of every debate. First and foremost, the idea of being transgender means that that person has a mental disorder is a going into weird territory. psychology todays definition of a mental disorder goes as so, "A mental disorder is a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom". I do not think the act of feeling like you are a different gender is a mental disorder. I do think that someone who is going through hormone therapy should not be allowed in the military if it is causing mood swings that cannot be stopped with regular medicine, but If they are not showing signs of having mental problems, or they can just take medication to stop the mood swings, they are fine in the military. The idea that having a higher chance for depression means you should not be allowed in the military would cause some problems. No people from Wyoming, people over 20, or people who are white would be allowed in the military if this rule was enforced (according to the AFSP). So because the idea that people who have a greater chance for depression and suicide should not be allowed in the military does not hold up in other cases, this point should be discarded (unless you have an explanation for how these are different. (also remember comparing one group to the populous is not the best strategy because it can warp results like this.)). I think that instead of saying that all transgender people should not be allowed in the military we should instead create some rules governing mood swings and have better psychological screenings to help make the military better overall. This would mean that the people who are transgender who are stable can go in, while the less stable ones can not go in / wait for there hormone therapy to work out. I don't think a full ban is the correct decision. Rather, I think we should use this time to make the military overall better. https://www.psychologytoday.com... https://afsp.org...
Liberal or Conservative

I agree with some of the rhetoric that conservatives use about smaller government, lower taxes and personal liberty but on the other hand when they talk about "illegals", going to war with poor middle eastern nations or locking up non violent drug users that really get's my goat. And then of course conservatives might talk a good game about fiscal responsibility, but when they are in office they tend to outspend liberals. So basically they're a bunch of hypocritical lying jerks.
Liberal or Conservative

Very well done Mr. Zak! Bravo! That's was a delicious report of the libertarian side of our current state. In the last decade, it is said the the right wing has become a currupt system of overall old-world values and disconcern for the decisions & choices of our minorities. Conservatives have been labeled as the new extremist movement with such advocators as Sarah Palen, Bill O'Rieley, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Obviously being a libertarian, do you agree with any teachings of a more conservative America? Is conservatism harmful or helpful for our current predicament of the recession? Lastly do you think morality is better favored correctly in one of these parties?
Liberal or Conservative

What is libertarianism? To me this political philosophy rests upon an axiom : that it is immoral to initiate force. That it is wrong to use violence or coercion to get other people to do what you want. In short, libertarians believe in the voluntary interaction of individuals. We can then take this axiom and apply some logical rules to it to deduce a political philosophy. An important moral principle is universality. If it is wrong for me to go out and attack someone, it is wrong for all individuals to go out and attack someone. Another important point here is that only individuals can attack. A group cannot do anything, only the individuals in that group can do something. It is wrong for me to rob; it is wrong for everyone to rob. But robbing is exactly what the taxman does. The taxman says, give me your money, or we will initiate legal proceedings against you and throw you in jail. Jailing someone is an act of aggression. That's not to say that no one can ever be jailed. Sometimes it's okay to use violence or force. Doesn't this contradict what I said above? No. It's wrong to initiate force. But if someone attacks you, then you can use force to defend yourself. You can also use force to bring criminals to justice, so long as you are authorized by the victim. But not paying taxes is not an act of aggression and it's not an act of theft because the claim that money is owed is invalid. No organization can unilaterally form a contract. The only time I can owe someone money is if I make a contract with them, or borrow money. So, if I do not pay the taxes the taxman claims I owe, and I refuse to pay after their sham legal proceedings (sham because no organization should be able to preside over a dispute which they themselves are a part of) then eventually I will be locked in a cage. This is an act of aggression, one which if I defend myself from, I will be murdered. It is now apparent that the state is in contradiction with the non aggression axiom. Either we are to throw out the non aggression axiom, we are to throw out the moral principle of universality, or we are to throw out the state and since I do not want to live in a world where it is survival of the fittest and dog eat dog, and I cannot abide by hypocrites, then I am left with no conclusion other than that we should live in a truly voluntary society, i.e. a world without government. Not a world without police, roads, and courts but instead a society where these services and goods are provided by the market and funded voluntarily instead of through a coerced levy.
God Probably Doesn't Exist

This debate is impossible to accept, if you wish to accept, let me know in the comments. God:The Judeo-Christian-Muslim Sentient Tri Omni disembodied being (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ect) who is the timeless Creator (or cause) of the Universe. BOP (Burden of proof) is shared. I must show that God is improbable and my opponent must show God is probable. Debate format is the typical Lincoln-Douglas format. R1: Acceptance R2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con) R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments R4: Defense of your original arguments. Since these debates tend to get long, you must limit yourself to a maximum of 3 contentions. This should be enough space for arguments and source lists. If there is not enough space to list sources, you may post them in an external link or in the comments. Rules: No forfeits No insults No semantics 72 Hours to Post Argument 10,000 Characters Max 10 Day Voting Period 3 contentions max Follow the format.
Rap Battle, Baby

I can't even insult your micropenis, nope Since it's so small I would need a microscope A pyramid of p*ssy, you say? In what country, Tajikistan? That's a country as insignificant as you, man Let's face the facts: I got a boy, you got your right hand So I urge all you voters to take a final stand And vote for me, to Make America Great Again We can't win with this guy in this country--his stupidity's so illegal, he makes us hate again. So Billie--If you can't stand the heat, get out of my kitchen, dawg Or I'll sear you harder than Asians will cook your dog Thank you very much--I've done my calculations---and the answer is clear: I am the only winner out of the two of us here. This rap battle is analogous to real life-- I had the last say: I finished. You didn't. By the way, good luck getting a wife.
Rap Battle, Baby

You may want to put aside some time to ponder your presence on earth You should think why your mother ever gave birth Is your life meaningful? F*ck no you have no purpose Anybody that as difference is full of bull You can try to insult my sex life and ego I drown in a pyramid of p*ssy so My ego is just fine, woman I bet your beau is your next of kin Maybe you should go back and do some math It's the only way you can avoid my wrath This is it for the round Sorry for taking you on a verbal ground and pound In the words of your future husband Lady, quit your b*tchin Now get back in the kitchen
Rap Battle, Baby

You're mistaken, sir--I've got plenty of d*ck, because I have a beau Whereas when you want p*ssy, you got nowhere to go You say you ain't got time, yet regarding beating me, you're persistent I think it's cause you need to build up your ego (which is pathetically nonexistent) The effort is valiant, but not enough to take it Maybe I'll take pity and let you win for once--I'll fake it. But that won't happen, for I win in both maturity and craft Since I don't need to resort to calling people noobs--that's daft. So I'm not on your best rapper list: but n*gga, you know why? This rap bitch is on God level, flying first class in the sky.
Rap Battle, Baby

It's on like Donkey Kong Don't be shy of my big a** dong You call yourself the rap god F*ck that you're just sod I walk on you all day and night Because my rapping is out of sight I ain't got time for sh*t like this Little noobs like you are full of p*ss You have an ocassional good rhyme, miss But at least it isn't archie's a** I kiss I got a list of the best rappers I know And lady you ain't on it so you better go
Rap Battle, Baby

Dear fellows and comrades, I've been challenged here today For a rap battle, baby, and to that I say" Bitches and hoes, get ready to throw down Because my rap skillz finna be the talk of the town I ain't comin' from Compton, as Taj might suggest But y'all see it don't matter cause my rhymes are the best So good"New Crusaders fight for me, not you, since your raps are just flawed That's why you don't mess with me: I am the Rap God.
England is treated as a Scandinavian country in "Braveheart"

Absolutely I refuted your argument. You cannot reference an entire country based on the monarchy or how the monarchy is portrayed. As I said in my previous argument. England is portrayed as the bad guy because the plot demands it. If you were to ask Scottish people from that time period they would probably agree with the portrayal, while the English would vehemently disagree. It's all about Ethnocentrism. However, the very idea of a movie created in AMERICA with an AMERICAN director having a hidden agenda against a country that they have no current negative connection to absolutely laughable. If this were a movie about the middle east you might have a leg to stand on. As it is your stance is incorrect and somewhat silly. Longshanks is nothing more than a villain for a plot device.
England is treated as a Scandinavian country in "Braveheart"

"England is not treated as a scandinavian country. In fact since the storyline takes place in Scotland and is about the Scottish people, England isn't really portrayed at all."For some reason you don't seem to refute what I said about England being portrayed as a Scandinavian country. You only say that England is not mentioned in the movie too much. It seems like the movie is anti-Germanic, portrayed the English in a way reminiscent of Bamboozled by Spike Lee, like card-carrying Klan members. Here's perhaps the most well-known scene that proves that England is indeed being portrayed as a Scandinavian country in this film: "The King of Scotland had died without a son and the King of England, a cruel pagan known as Edward the Longshanks, claimed the throne of Scotland for himself." He calls him a pagan, in a very insulting and disparaging way too. Only one region in the world is known for devout paganism, and that's Scandinavia. And this was in the narraration too. Put the Scandinavian traditions aside, Longshanks is portrayed in a rather heathenous way too. Like he has no regard for Catholic traditions or practices. In another scene, it's dubbed in a way that if you didn't know what they were really saying, you would think they were showing a Scandinavian disregard for the Catholic practices. In one scene Talmadge says, "Insolent bastard." However, you would only know that if you read the script or put it in subtitles. The way he says it, it sounds like, "Ancient bastard." Which one would assume reasonably. The movie earlier gave a hint as Longshanks being a cruel Scandinavian pagan who treated Catholics like garbage. Here it's not so much the possibly, but rather the way he said "insolent" is what's amazing about it. It's dubbed in such a way that if you didn't pay attention more closely, you'd think the English are indeed cruel pagans from Scandianvia who terrorized the original "Godly" (whether you agree or not) Britons.
England is treated as a Scandinavian country in "Braveheart"

England is not treated as a scandinavian country. In fact since the storyline takes place in Scotland and is about the Scottish people, England isn't really portrayed at all. The King, Longshanks and his court are really the only group we see that has any bit of meaningful dialogue. The soldiers that are there are simply portrayed as "big nasties" that beat up on the Scots whenever possible. Which is nothing but simple stry arc. If the English weren't "big nasties" then we the audience wouldn't be as inclined to take the side of Mel Gibson's character.
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

SOR: I affirm the resolution as stated. VP: Justice VC: Human Rights. "As the performance of our duties of every kind depends on life, and the performing them with vigor and efficacy depends upon health, we are very strongly affected with whatever threatens the destruction of either. Burke" C-1: Economic sanctions are unjust in regard to human rigths beacuse they have a history of ineffectiveness, thereby wasting time and effort. Further, who is to say that the imposing nation (s) are in the right? It is entirely possible that they are imposing sanctions for reasons other than what they were declared, thus infringing upon the rights and freedoms of human beings. C-2: Citizens of the country (ies) being sanctioned often bear the brunt of suffering while the intended targets enjoy status quo. This too is unjust in regard to Human Rights. The underlying premise is that the citizens will tire of any depravities, and thus either demand change or effect a change of leadership to alleviate their suffering. Either way, it often unjustly puts citizens in harm's way directly or indirectly. "Leaders often obtain things they need from other sources sympathetic to their cause, while their people continue to suffer those comforts. Orwell" C-3: Sanctions also affect the citizens of the imposing nation (s) in the form of lost trade, and hurt feelings. Not only do they lose trade and capital, it also affects the symbiance and interelational harmony amongst nations. Nations will be forced to choose one side or the other, or attempt to ignore the situation by remaning neutral. This choice is humanely unjust to the citizens of countries because nations will likely harbor feelings of resentment toward one side or the other. Thanks to my opponent in advance!
Is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)a messenger of GOD

"When in history did an insane man preach his message to worship One God for ten years, three of which he and his followers spent in exile, and eventually became the ruler of his lands?"My opponent is incorrect about his definition of insanity. "A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life as this disorder bears no relation to one's IQ, and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusion. According to German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, patients with Delusional Disorder remain coherent, sensible and reasonable." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]"and opponent instead of making vague statements you need to debunk my arguments in round 2 first with evidence and then construct your own showing that Muhammad was a liar or deluded"I can not.1. You are trying to prove that Muhammad is the messenger of God.2. You made an argument first.3. You have the burden of proof.Since you have the BOP, I am compelled to simply refute your argument, which I cannot do with you actually presenting evidence.I wish Pro luck for the final round.
Is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)a messenger of GOD

First, I feel that I should point out that my opponent has provided zero evidence for any of his claims. They should be dismissed until he does."If one were to say that Muhammad lied and claimed prophethood in order to bring moral and religious reform to a society ridden with ills, this argument is futile in itself, for how can one bring moral reform through a lie. If Muhammad was so keen to uphold and preach upright morals and worship of One God, then could he have lied himself in doing so? If we say that this is not possible, the only answer is that he was speaking the truth."You have not demonstrated why this would be true. Giving the Arabs "one God" would have certainly helped. I see no reason to believe why this was not so.Pro also ignores the possibility that Muhammad truly believed what he was saying. He has not provided any argument against why this would be so.
Is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)a messenger of GOD

"I gav u my arguments already u haven't rebutted them"I am trying to get you to understand that your arguments were fallacious. As an example: "Is it possible for him to tell a consistent lie for 23 years, a lie so monstrous that it would make him a social outcast, when he was never known to have lied even once about anything? Its simply against the psychology of liars."What does this mean? What kind of liar? What would his direct motives be? (beyond abstract concepts like "fame and fortune" or "moral progress." An example of this would be getting blackmailed). Everything relies on that. I cannot answer this because it is a broad assumption that you have not provided any evidence for."But when his uncle asked why hed didn't he gave a beautiful answer and said even if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left iq ould never give up this message. Does this sound like a liar."See, all of your posts are full of these non-arguments, that I cannot answer to. Saying "Does this sound like a liar?" is not a true argument. Those that were you still provided no source for, and I cannot verify many of the things you say from sources outside the Quran. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for your claims, you did not.I also provided you with an alternative to all-out insanity (delusional disorder), and provided a source for it. Since you have the burden of proof, it was your job to refute this. You did not.Conclusion My opponent has shirked his responsibility to make direct arguments. He has only given fallacious statements and ignored my arguments. Since he has not reasonably proven that Muhammad is a messenger of God, I urge a Con vote.
Aliens

REBUTTALMy opponent claims that we cannot use mathematics to support the possibility of extra-terrestrial life because we do not have another planet with life which we can compare to our own. I will admit that it is impossible to prove the existence of life throughout the universe without another planet as a guideline, however it is not improbable to say that we can show that it is likely. My two formulas from round two support this claim, as they each show that it is highly likely that their is life outside of earth. Based on our understanding of how life forms, we can simply claim that if a planet has water and the appropriate conditions (i.e. temperature, radiation, atmosphere, etc.) it is possible that it can harbor life. Based on the sheer size of the universe, their could be thousands of such planets. Therefore it is not improbable to assume that at least one planet in the entire universe other than Earth could be harboring life. Personally, I believe that the premise for this debate is a little bit too ambitious. Proving that their is life that has the technology to communicate with us is impossible. Supporting the idea that extraterrestrial life exists in any form is much easier, and I have supported it in the second round. Therefore based on the size and age of the universe, it is reasonable to believe that at least one one of these primitive species has evolved to the point where it is technologically advanced enough to get into outer space. However, since it is possible that this species is found millions of light years away from us, it is illogical to presume that they could ever communicate with us. Yet the possibility of their existence is high, which is what truly matters. I apologize for the short response, I am running out of time to post an argument and I am kind of busy at the moment. Anyways, thanks for the enlightening debate!
Aliens

A couple things: "Applies to the known universe". Since you want to still consider us as the 1 instance that allows your equations to come up as at least 1 then by those calculations we could make the conclusion that we've already met that alien species and it is us. A 1 as an answer would also indicate that there is no other possible life out there to meet. Everything else those equations use as a factor is a fraction (and very very tiny ones at that) that make any number these equations calculate an infinitesimally small amount larger than 1. Additionally (as I mentioned in the previous argument), if you were not to count us you would always come up with a zero. Or we could look at the trend your professors have shown in how their equations have grown and see that the next variable in them (the one not included) as a technology we don't yet posess to discover these lifeforms. Say for instance your "length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space" is not ever long enough or the method is never fast enough to reach those lifeforms. That's the extent of your known universe. Ill throw a hypothetical in here by saying, what if we discover that travelling faster than light is the only way to conceivably reach one of those lifeforms by expanding our range. We don't have that ... that'd be a 0 factor that would debase the whole equation. If you said that was the absolute equation for finding life before 1820 it would have been a 0 by the above standards as well. My point being that for whatever hope we might have of finding any of those lifeforms, for every moment that we don't we are just decreasing the possibility more. We can build ever increasing variables onto the ends of those equations to meet our own knowledge base, but that is no indication on what the extent of technology is that it would take for us to get far enough in our communication for our spheres of influence to cross with other life. Using our technology as a standard is flawed and is a way to work the numbers for favorable outputs. Personally I still don't find those outputs favorable. I would certainly never bet on them. I actually like that they used the words "... might hope to be able to communicate with" since that best describes what these equations are geared towards ... hope. There is no reason to think either of these equations will render an exact chance at meeting anything as they all are based off of our current extent which has only rendered us.