BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People can be born Homosexual.

Aw, sad to see him FF. I will continue with another point. Not only is there a disorder called Hermaphrodite which is, a person having both male and female sexual characteristics and genital tissues, there is another disorder called Klinefelter syndrome which is common in males. Klinefelter syndrome is a syndrome is a genetic disorder that affects males. Klinefelter syndrome occurs when a boy is born with one or more extra X chromosomes. Most males have one Y and one X chromosome. Having extra X chromosomes can cause a male to have some physical traits unusual for males. Many men with an extra X chromosome are not aware that they have it, and they lead normal lives. Males who have Klinefelter syndrome may be described as X-Y males or males with X-Y syndrome. Klinefelter syndrome occurs in about 1 out of 1,000 males. The symptoms are: Many men who have Klinefelter syndrome do not have obvious symptoms. Others have sparse body hair, enlarged breasts, and wide hips. In almost all men the testicles remain small. In some men the penis does not reach adult size. Their voices may not be as deep. They usually cannot father children. But they can have a normal sex life. As you can see, men with this disorder become sexually confused because they are male, but develop female traits to, causing confusion. Source: http://www.webmd.com...
People can be born Homosexual.

My opponent claims: "Its imposable to be born as anything." This is in fact false. You are born female or male. Now the reason I say people can be born to be homosexual is because their is a disorder called hermaphrodite. A Hermaphrodite can be defined as: "an individual in which reproductive organs of both sexes are present. Compare pseudohermaphrodite." or "combining two opposite qualities. " *a person having both male and female sexual characteristics and genital tissues When people with this disorder are born, they can be sexually confused. They are born with man and women traits, resulting in the fact they may be attracted to their own sex. So, if they are born male and female, they would be attracted to a gender, causing them to be homosexual since they are women/man. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...
High school literature classes should be replaced

C1. Lit class has some use so it would be better to just add another class. C2. In lit class, you still develop debate skills, critical thinking skills and some logical reasoning skills. My opponent dropped the point it still teaches these things even if at a lesser level in some areas but, a greater area in others. Furthermore, teaching about say a river and a kid tells of an individual interaction with society not a societal interaction with other societies. An objective test is not the best way to learn grammar. Hands on experience in writing is. C3. A new writing style encompasses vocabulary, their personality in writing, how they perceive the audience, their tone, frameworks, etc. This is a FUNDAMENTAL part of writing. The best way to develop style is by reading good literature. A lit class teaches cultural aspects more in depth than a history class. You develop your moral preferences through yours and others experiences, good literature gives other people's experiences.
High school literature classes should be replaced

C1 Since lit class doesn't have any use, I don't have to explain why would be better to simply replace it. My point still stands.C2 Arguing over what a river might represent is mind-numbing because it doesn't matter what the river represents. In a history class, you learn about borders and cultural assimilation. In a lit class, you focus on how a river represents those borders, instead of learning what happened and why. Also, reasoning skills are taught in science class, but using things that matter. Lastly, in grammar classes, students are critiqued on their grammar through objective tests.C3 Students do not need to learn "new writing styles" to be good writers, as they already know grammar from the grammar classes. Also, history does teach cultural aspects and "why". For example, if you take a Native American history course, you will learn all about their culture. The fact that lit teaches moral aspects is a bad thing. Morality is personal; students should discover it for themselves.
High school literature classes should be replaced

Our points clash so I'll just keep going C1. You still didn't explain why it would be better to replace a class which has some use. Rather than just implement a new class teaching grammar. C2. Yes it does, you have to think about what the river may represent than prove your point in a paper. It develops logical reasoning, critical thinking, and debate skills. You form a hypothesis (thesis), and attempt to prove it in the body. Even if they do use a chapter summary site they still develop debating skills. Writing papers and getting you critiqued gives a better impact on how to write than just learning the rules. BOTH are important. C3. Prove these are useless. Writing is important. Also, even if it is lit would then be a backup which is good. Lit teaches about cultural aspects and why. History teaches the what. Lit gives more moral aspects of why something is good or bad. For example, slavery (Uncle Tom's Cabin why slavery is bad. Textbook what slavery is and what was done about it)
High school literature classes should be replaced

C1 All students would have to retake the grammar test each year regardless of whether or not they passed their freshman year. This would ensure that they had't lost any of their grammar skills during the year. If they had, they would have to take the grammar class.C2 Writing papers and taking tests about themes in a novel does not develop critical thinking. Being forced to write about, for example, what a river represents in a novel is a mind-numbing activity. Students already develop critical thinking 100x as much in math and science classes as they do in lit classes. Also, just because a student doesn't read, doesn't mean they will fail. Some students may choose to use chapter summary websites, however dishonest it may be.C3 Just about everything that is taught in lit class is also taught in history class, in a much more practical and effective way. Learning things like "new writing styles" and literary devices is useless for a student in the long run.
High school literature classes should be replaced

Don't worry about the formatting C1 Students who test out of grammar classes will spend an entire year without an English class. So instead of just replacing lit class. Why not instead add an extra English class, grammar, which can be tested out of. That way students receive the benefit of both learning grammar and reading literature. Instead of replacing. Just add. C2 Lit classes are important for a student. In lit classes, students are made to write papers, or take tests, about themes of the novels being read and discussed. This forces them to use higher critical thinking in order to formulate a thesis about the novel(s) and the write a paper. If they don't read. They fail. It develops critical thinking. C3 The novels selected in lit classes are chosen for a reason. A teacher does not just randomly choose books. The book may have themes important to understand about the development of a society. There may be a new writing style in the book. It forces kids to read "good" literature
High school literature classes should be replaced

Thanks for accepting, and sorry about the formatting issues in round 1. C1 Some high school students display a lack of grammatical skills. These grammar classes will resolve this problem without forcing students who already have a sound grasp of English grammar to endure a class that is useless to them. C2 Lit classes don't adequately teach students grammar. For one, reading books (or writing books, for that matter) doesn't directly teach students grammatical rules. Also, there isn't a way to ensure that a student actually reads the assigned books. C3 Lit classes rarely teach students useful things. Of the useful things that students do learn from lit class, most are also taught in other classes like history. C4 Removing lit class from schools will also remove the required reading that goes along with it. This will free up time for students to read things that they actually enjoy, causing those students who would have chosen not to read the assigned reading to read more.
High school literature classes should be replaced

Full topic: High school English literature classes should be replaced with basic English grammar classes that students can test out of if they recieve a high enough score.1st round is for acceptance only.Arguments are limited to 1,000 characters.Definitions/Synonyms from Merriam Webster:Basic: elementary; of, relating to, or dealing with the simplest elements or principles of somethingLiterature: Writings in prose or verseGrammar: The study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentenceThanks in advance to whoever accepts!
The only thing we can be certain of is our existence.

First: Your answer to my first point doesn't prove that we don't exist. At most, they assert that we exist as some part of a higher being. Second: For clarification, the higher force will be labelled as "being" in the debate because the force is assumed to exist so it "is" and therefore would "be." Third: All definitions of existence entitle themselves because existence is (ironically enough) "issing" or "being", thus it is still a valid definition in the debate. I never stated that existence was universal. I simply assumed that you exist and many like you exist. I also assumed that you exist the same way that I do. Existence extends only to that which I percieve. If I assume that you are similar to me, I can also assume that you are typing and responding on a computer, but remember that all of this is based on assumption. This reinforces the point that the only thing I know with absolute certainty is that I exist. Lastly: At this point in the debate, even if you were granted all your arguments, I would still be winning. This is because the only thing you challenged was my existence. You've lost that argument because even if I am some part of a higher force I still exist as that part. I may not have a distinct existence, but that doesn't negate my existence. Secondly, I know I exist because I am and it is impossible for me to not exist because my existence is what I am right now. Lastly, assuming you exist, you know I exist in some form (no matter how small) because you are recieving input on your computer screen from me. It doesn't matter how I exist. I simply exist in some way, and that existence is the only thing that I can be absolutely sure of.
The only thing we can be certain of is our existence.

I will refute first your arguments, then move on to a rebuilding of mine own. 1. We do not exist, a higher force exists. 2. I agree, there is no higher being. what there is is a higher force. The fact that all humans think in the same manner is a level of connectivity that surpasses perceptions or experiences. 3. I disagree with your definition of existence on the ground that it entitles itself, and therefore cannot be used in the realm of debate. even if you do not concede that fact, you recognize that existence is universal. thinking must not be the basis of existence only that which exists must be the basis, therefore i argue my definition in superiority. Only on thing exists. a higher force that is the universe My arguments stand firm against the existence of ones-self
The only thing we can be certain of is our existence.

There are three problems with your argument: First: If we were some part of a higher being we would exist. Second: There is no higher being. Our consciousnesses are what they are, which is to say that we exist because we percieve. Since I don't percieve "higher being", my existence is all that there is to existence. I cannot know anything beyond my perceptions. Existence is a de facto idea. We "are what we are", so unless you can make me aware of this "higher being", it doesn't exist. Third: Descarte's statement "I think, therefore I am." is the truest definition of existence. It is the ONLY definition of existence that is universally true for things that exist in the way that we do.
The only thing we can be certain of is our existence.

I disagree with you on one simple point. The fact that we can be sure of our existence. I ask you to define existence as this is your debate, but for my argument, i will use the philosophypages.com definition Instantiation in reality, or actual being. We assume that we, or moreover, our conscious exists, because that is how our interactions are on a daily basis. I would submit, that we are simply embodiments of a higher consciousness, or energy/energy level. we are the embodiments of a single energy, and therefore, any instance we create, is simply that of that higher energy. therefore, saying that we exist, is a fallacy. by saying we instantize (i warn, i make up words), we are simply proving the existence of the higher energy or force
The only thing we can be certain of is our existence.

I will respond to your first contention in a moment. On to your second one, a being implies will, and embodiment. Third: by your definition, everything MUST exist, if i say it does. i perceive it does, so by your definition and arguments, the original statement you made is false. a negative burden is simply to disprove the original statement, and through your arguments, i have. Descartes objectivity has come into question, so i dont even believe your resources are credible. simply because one says something does not make it true. i urge you to contend me on this point. on your summary, i would argue that even though we are part of a higher force, we alone cannot stand, cannot exist.
We can create a religion

Con makes a bunch of flawed statements by stating that you need a God in order to create a religion. A religion not does necessitate belief in a deity. Scientology is just one example of this A religion is a set of beliefs and practices that people follow So yes you can create a religion and it has been done numerous times throughout history. Every religion has been created in that sense. Now on to how to bake a cupcake Cupcake Baker's Pantry With these basic items, you can make and decorate a batch of cupcakes in a snap. Equipment: Cupcake pans (mini and regular) Paper baking cups available in a variety of colors and prints. Find them in supermarkets, party, craft or specialty cake decorating stores. Resealable food-storage plastic bags for piping icings and glazes. Staples: Boxed cake mixes in a variety of flavors. Ready-to-spread frostings. Decorating icing, assorted colors. Decorating gels, assorted colors. Food colors (liquid, gel or paste). Try paste food color for more vivid color frosting. Assorted colored sugars and edible glitters. Assorted candy sprinkles. Baking Pans A box of cake mix makes 24 to 30 cupcakes in regular-size cupcake pan. There are also pans that have mini, large and jumbo cups. Pan Size Cup Size Mini1 3/4 x 1 inches Regular2 1/2 x 1 1/4 inches Large2 3/4 x 1 1/4 inches Jumbo3 1/2 x 1 3/4 inches If you have only one pan and a recipe calls for more cupcakes than your pan will make, just cover and refrigerate the rest of the batter while baking the first batch. Cool the pan about 15 minutes, then bake the rest of the batter, adding 1 to 2 minutes to the bake time. An easy way to fill baking cups is to use an ice cream scoop. Use one that measures out 1/3 cup batter when filling regular-size cups. Use one that measures out 2 tablespoons batter when filling mini cups. Frosting Tips Carefully dip tops of cupcake into the frosting, give a slight twist and remove. Finish off with a swirl of a knife if needed. Dip frosted cupcakes into bowls of nuts, colored sugar, sprinkles, or other decors for easy decorating. How to Store Cupcakes Cool cupcakes completely before covering to keep tops from becoming sticky (about 30 minutes). Cover cupcakes that will be frosted later loosely so the tops stay dry. If covered tightly, they become sticky and difficult to frost. Store cupcakes with a creamy-type frosting loosely covered with foil, plastic wrap or waxed paper or under a cake safe or inverted bowl. Refrigerate cupcakes with whipped cream toppings or cream fillings. Frost cupcakes with fluffy frosting on the day they are to be served. Freeze cupcakes two to three months, tightly wrapped. To prevent frosting on frosted cupcakes from sticking, freeze cupcakes uncovered 1 hour, then insert a toothpick in the top of the cupcake, and tightly wrap. Thaw cupcakes in the refrigerator or on the countertop. When thawing on the countertop, loosen or remove wrapping to prevent condensation. Decorating gel, hard candies and colored sugars do not freeze well because they tend to run during thawing. sourced [1] From betty crockers recipe of cupcakes
The Piano Guys are better than the Cello Guys

The Piano Guys are better than the Cello Guys (2Cellos). A cello and a cello is a good combination but there's only so much you can do with a cello. The 2Cellos both play cellos and while they're both good at it, they both sound the same. The Piano Guys have a combination of the piano and a cello. This allows for The Piano Guys to be able to get the best of both instruments together. With the vast note range of the piano and the ability to play more than one note and the deep powerful rich sound of the cello, those put together equal an amazing song. 2Cellos may be great but they would never be able to replicate what The Piano Guys can do. Watch this video. https://m.youtube.com... This video shows a whole lot of things that you can do with the piano. You can bow with the piano plus create percussion with the piano and pluck the strings which is what the cello can do but there's also more. You can play the piano like a normal piano, you can get up to a quartet on just one piano (its not shown in this video but I've seen four people play the piano at piano competitions) which I've never seen four people play a cello, all of them bowing and playing it how it's supposed to be played. The Piano Guys have access to the piano which the 2Cellos do not which limits how they can play a song. Now listen to this. https://m.youtube.com... It's the theme from Kung Fu Panda which any stringed instrument can play. But the piano creates a different sound from cello which makes the song more interesting.
The Piano Guys are better than the Cello Guys

THE CELLO GUYS Thunderstruck Whole Lot of Love vs Beethoven 5th Symphony They Don't Care About Us-Micheal Jackson THE PIANO GUYS Kung Fu Piano-Cello Ascends Let It Go (disney "Frozen") Vivaldi's Winter Swedish House Mafia-Don't You Worry Child Listen to the videos if you don't know who either is. Round 1-Accepting the challenge Round 2-Debating Round 3-Rebutal You're allow to post video's of other songs that they have made to aide with your debate.
You shouldn't start a business unless people are asking you to

Although businesses are typically made by people who enjoy doing an activity, they don't necessarily succeed. Rand Paul stated once that nine out of ten businesses fail within their first four years. You stated that there is always a demand for items, which may be somewhat true, but that doesn't mean that the demand for an item is spread out evenly. Typically, market types that are run as an oligopoly usually take more customers than the other business running in the market. You also stated that opening a business should be your choice, and my argument isn't saying that it shouldn't be. I think, however, that if you were to create a business which can survive past four years, you need to have a loyal customer base as well as strong demand for your product/service. I will now unpack my second argument which is specialized, and time. If your business has a niche in the market, you will develop a greater consumer following, in less time than it would usually take you if you were to be a "copycat" company (think China). Usually, a niche proposed to the general population will have many begging you for it to become a reality. Small businesses such as cafes may find it difficult to grow, and maintain a profit stream due to high competition, hence why "you shouldn't start a business unless there is a large demand for it." They will most-likely just end up like the other 90 percent out there. Thank you, and I beg for you to support my motion.
You shouldn't start a business unless people are asking you to

Businesses are typically made by people who enjoy doing an activity and realise they can make a job out of it. Ever heard of the term "If you enjoy what you're doing you will never work a day in your life" it means the job is something you enjoy doing. and there will almost always be a demand for the items, or activity you are doing. Jewelers make jewlery because they like the activity, and they take pride in the result. Opening a business should be your idea, and choice, not that of others.
You shouldn't start a business unless people are asking you to

Thank you for the opportunity to debate the motion that "you shouldn"t start a business unless people are asking you to". I believe this motion, which originally is a quote from Derek Sivers (notorious businessman) to be true due to three reasons, which are: Demand, Specialized, Time. Before I begin, I would like to redefine this quote to mean "you shouldn"t start a business unless there is a large demand for it". The first reason that I believe you shouldn"t start a business unless people are asking you to is because there is a demand already there for your product/service. This means that it is easier to gain customers than conventional business operations. One case study example is with Fortune"s (2017) number one fastest growing company, Natural Health Trends. Natural Health Trends" subsidiaries offers its customers personal care products, wellness, and quality of life products (NHTC, n.d.). This company, with its subsidiaries, used the strong market demand for quality healthcare products to its advantage, and the market for skin-care products is worth US$128.1 billion according to statista.com (n.d.). Yin and Pryor (2012) state that the great demand for such beauty products is due to society"s use of physically attractive models which set the standards of beauty. This is because physical attractiveness is seen as a major component of consumer marketing. If there is a company that is created without a large demand for the product, they are more likely to fail. An example of such a company is one that operates on offering the lowest prices to compete with large businesses that are already operating within the market. Shirai (2015) states that high quality and low prices (HQLP) are contradictory terms, and can damage customer perceptions on the company"s product as it may be understood as being a lie, and instead the product is of low value, to match the price. Also, by using such a pricing strategy, you sacrifice monetary gain. In the example above, when there is a lack of demand, you have a lower chance of succeeding due to having to adopt unsatisfactory pricing strategies to make up for the lack of market share your company has within an established market. For the reasons above, I beg of you to support my motion. References Fortune, (2017). Natural health trends. Received December 6 from http://fortune.com... Natural Health Trends Corporation (NHTC), (n.d.). Company.Retrieved December 6 from http://www.naturalhealthtrendscorp.com... Shirai, M. (2015). Impact of "high quality, low price" appeal on consumer evaluations. Retrieved December 6 from http://www.tandfonline.com... Statista, (n.d.). Size of the global skin care market from 2012 to 2024.Retrieved December 6 from https://www.statista.com... Yin, B. & Pryor, S. (2012). Beauty in the age of marketing. Retrieved December 6 from ftp://ftp.repec.org...