BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Transgender Individuals Should Be Allowed To Serve Openly In The Military.

You may be asking yourself "wait, I thought don't ask, don't tell was repealed"? Well, it was. But immediately after the congressional statute was torn down, the Department of Defense announced it was putting a total ban on transgender service members serving openly. This ban remains in place today. In March of 2014, a study was conducted that determined roughly 15,000 people serving in the Armed Forces of the United States identified as transgender [1]. These individuals face summary dismissal for violating this policy, and as a service member myself, I feel this should end immediately. The study also concluded "Many male-to-female transgender individuals enlist to try to submerge their feminine sides, while many female-to-male transgender people enlist because they want to be in a hypermasculine environment."[1] If there are 15000 transgender individuals in the military, out of 2.3 million in all branches, that makes up .7% of the military. And if there are 24.5 million veterans in the United States, .7% of that population would be 1,715,000. So the total number of active, reserve and veteran service members is around 1,730,000; or roughly the entire population of Dallas, TX; Erie, PA; Cambridge, MA; Berkeley, CA; and Richmond, VA COMBINED [2]. This ban on transgender service cuts off veterans and service members that have bled for our freedom and liberty from healthcare they need, such as Hormone Replacement Therapy and Sexual Reassignment Surgery. For 300 years the military said that homosexuality was incompatible with military service, for nearly two hundred years they said desegregating the military would ruin morale, just 100 years ago they said women were incapable of being warriors and even denied them the right to vote. In every case, the establishment was incorrect. We have the strongest military in the world because we recognize that it isn't whats on the outside that makes a soldier, it's the commitment to their countrymen, their bravery, their sense of duty, discipline, and selfless service. And those things are independent of race, religion, orientation, or gender identity. Sources: 1 - (page 23) http://www.palmcenter.org... 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
DDO music tourney: Round 1. NiamC vs BradK

Ok, so you wanted to be part of the tourney. Nows your chance; my opponent unfortunately dropped out, so If you want, you can go against me or I will proceed and go to the next round of the music tourney.These were the rules of the round I was going do, these rules will be the ones for this round with you.Rules:1 piece per person.1st round is acceptanceniamc will go first in R2Any instrument(s) can be used.Any piece can be played, both sides can play the same piece but at each other's discretion.The piece can be any length in time.Be sure to post the link of your recording in R2. Good luck!
A crackdown on paedophile Catholic priests: it"s time for a good old fashioned witch hunt

I assume my opponent is familiar with racial profiling in the fight against terrorism. In the UK this means people of Middle Eastern appearance are five times more likely to be stopped and searched by the transport police than white people. [1] That's because most, though not all, of the non-Irish Republican terrorist attacks in the UK are committed by people of Middle Eastern origin. Of course, that does not mean all people in the UK from the Middle East are terrorists but it makes sense to keep a close eye on them, just in case. Because of the Catholic Church's cover-up of the child sex abuse scandal we don't know how many priests are involved in molesting underage boys but while it is possible that not all of them are practicing homosexual paedophiles, it makes sense to keep a close eye on them, just in case. Thank you. [1] . http://www.theguardian.com...
A crackdown on paedophile Catholic priests: it"s time for a good old fashioned witch hunt

Look, friend. Catholic priests are not all pedophiles. Maybe a few of them did what you said they did, but not all of them. You are stereotyping and making generalizations. For example, you said if you knocked on any old catholic priest's door, that he will be a depraved, kiddie-fiddling closet homosexual who has been queering-up the choirboys for years. That is in no way true. Good day to you sir.
A crackdown on paedophile Catholic priests: it"s time for a good old fashioned witch hunt

In 1450 witch hunts began in earnest in many western European countries after the Roman Catholic Church created an imaginary evil religion, using stereotypes that had circulated since pre-Christian times. They said that pagans were evil witches who kidnapped babies, killed and ate their victims, sold their soul to Satan, were in league with demons, flew through the air, met in the middle of the night, caused male impotence and infertility, etc. [1] Of course, there is no such thing as witches but if Catholics really want to hunt down evil people all they have to do is knock on the door of their local Parochial House and speak to the resident priest. Odds-on he will be a depraved, kiddie-fiddling closet homosexual who has been queering-up the choirboys for years. The Vatican has consistently refused to co-operate with police investigations into the hundreds of thousands of incidents of sexual abuse of children committed by Catholic priests and the United Nations has slammed the Catholic Church"s "efforts to cover up and obscure these types of cases" and is pressing the Holy See about its failure to provide reports for almost two decades on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which it ratified in 1990. [2] With this being the case, the public should assist the police through the auspices of neighbourhood watch schemes to mount surveillance and interrogation operations to monitor, observe, follow, investigate and question all Catholic priests everywhere they go, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This will ensure they are either forced to abandon their vile sexual pursuits of young boys or face justice in a court of law. Thank you. [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2] http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...
Muslims, please prove these videos wrong!

So you have still not proved the videos wrong, you have only responded with non-supported material( ex. more stuff that you cannot prove. Please prove the videos wrong. You are using the book that keeps lying, you have not proven anything wrong, you just keeps saying that i don't have proof. It is kinda naive of you. You keep using a fake book yet it is in question since it is part of a big deception of satan (adversary) which is lucifer, the beautiful angel muhammad saw. Please provide proof as that is the point of the debate, i will write in big letters and maybe you will get it, MUSLIMS, PROVE THESE VIDEOS WRONG... is that to hard to understand? http://www.british-israel.ca...
Muslims, please prove these videos wrong!

So...you still did not prove the videos wrong. You just quoted scriptures from a book that is also in question, you tried to say allah and Elohim are the same(which are not), and you said that historians have no clue on what they are seeing(seated male figure ...etc). What does the moon stand for on "your" flag? So the video says allah is baal. That is already telling me more than you know about your god. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is YHWH (Yaweh). You seem to be typing with your fingers without any real evidence. You quote things from a book that keeps contradicting itself(also in video), and that was written by a mad man which was inspired by Lucifer.
Muslims, please prove these videos wrong!

They are videos from a series called, "know your enemy", it talks about things related to the Bible, history , and current events. These videos here are just a part of an 11 hour series. These are around 10 minutes long since it is only a piece of the whole series. I believe what these videos say and would like to be proved wrong about believing them. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Opinions on the Black Lives Matter protests.

BLM Protesters are over exaggerating 100%. They are not being treated unfairly, if anything the people caught in the middle of it all are being treated unfairly. Yes, police brutality does exist. No, blacks aren't the only ones it happens to. Just as many white people have been brutalized by police officers as black people. Today's youth thinks its okay to walk around and be disrespectful and unorthodox, and people aren't doing anything about it. While they are protesting they are giving today's youth the power and attention they want. As a 17yr old, I can tell you exactly how a teenager thinks. They want the attention and power and the protesters are giving it to them. Stop giving the protests and the youth attention and it will all die down.
weed

Well welcome to Debate.org! All your points are valid but are not exact. You stated that weed makes you hungary, yes it does, and you said you wouldn't operate machinery cause of that? Alchohal makes you need to pee, people still drive and see how that turns out... You also stated medical weed, yeah I knew about it but I havnt brought it up because it isn't relevant to whether we should legalize weed or not. If weed got legalized the US could not make it a medical drug, no matter what. Why? Because currently it is a medical drug, and of course people want it fully legalized. So this would mean you could buy weed anywhere if it was legalized (like cigarettes) so this would leave the opportunity for people to use fillers and make some extra moolah, and as I stated earlier fillers can kill you! Lastly I would like to point out that weed must be grown, not manufactured. The demand for weed will be so high (play on words :P ) that people will mass grow weed and weed needs to be a certain distance from another plant or it can damage the plants cells making the leaves poisonous. Mass growing will turn out just like corn frowning and cow farming, genetically changed and abused... And especially seeing as you inhale the smoke into your lungs it needs to be really safe!! Good debate! Looking forward to seeing you aroun debate.org
weed

very good reasons. i am new to this just started today, and yes it is very fun. anyways...not everyone enjoys the feeling of being high. some cases have really bad trips and vow to never again tio induldge in the stuff. one good thing about legal marijuana is if you have it, wouldnt you soon burn yourself out on it???? that is a sturdy question. yes you are right it does have some negative effects, but. munchies. plain and simple. when you get "high" the wind down of it makes you hungry, pushing you to eat. a lot. anorexia and cancer patients are pescribed marijuana to help them eat or heal. one little tid bit of knowledge you probably did'nt know is that marijuana actually causes or promotes new brain cell growth. weed does not make you stuiped, ignorance does. and it's not the weed that hurts you, it's what those idiot dealers that lace it in other harmful substances that hurts you. you got your casual and heavy smokers. casual smoke mabye once or twice in a 2 week course. heavy, well every day is their problem. that is a moderatly large difference in the two. casual can hold down a jpb not the heavy one. i think that covers my part of the debate. thank you for reading!
weed

First off I would like to say thank you for the compliment. I am a 7th grader and I really enjoy debate and I compete for my school. My parter and I got 2nd place in Public Forum debate at the junior high national debate tournament. Enough about me and back to the debate. Yes, some forms of weed are not addictive, but people still get addicted to the feeling of being high. For example somebody smokes for the first time, they have a great time being high so they buy more and more weed. This can cause people to spends a lot of their money. And it won't be an addiction like cigarettes but a choice addiction like gambling. And even though legalizing weed might lower weed related crimes, there are too many reasons (like the ones in my first post) that make that point worthless. People will also use fillers in weed (chemicals that are cheaper than actual weed) to make more profit off each gram. Fillers can be unsafe sometimes and can even cause death. Another thing I would like to point out is that weed effects you negatively too... Yes, weed makes you high and can relieve stress, but being high while doing things such as operating machines or even driving can cause danger for not only you but others around you. Lastly, it is important to know that if weed was legalized many kids would try it. Weed is extemely unsafe for kids and many kids would steal, cheat, and lie in anyway to get money to buy weed, even if it means killing somebody for the money or stealing it from their parents wallet. Obviously that is bad and causes MORE crime. (maybe not drug related but it's still crime) For all these reasons wee should stay illegal and only be used for medical purposes only. This is why Pro is correct.
Is God(Christian) a standard of morality to follow

Thank you for your rebuttal, and let me clear two things up before I clarify the depiction of Yahweh according to the Holy Bible. 1. I did not say that his followers should be thrown in prison. I clearly said that if any human displayed the same behavior as Yahweh is depicted in the bible, that he or she would be put to death or thrown in prison. On grounds of mass murder, genocide, infanticide, and human rights violations for promoting slavery. 2. The authors of the Bible would indeed say gratuitous things about this character Yahweh out of fear of what would happen to them if they did not. I propose that positive statements made about this Yahweh god were made under duress and not to be taken seriously, just as we Americans don't take seriously the statements of North Korean citizens when they are forced to say what a loving, good, fatherly like, nurturing, and caring kind man Kim Jon Un is. Now that that is cleared up lets focus on the grievances against this Yahweh character. Lets start with Genesis: 1. THE FLOOD- ESTIMATED MURDERS- 2,000,000 "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy." 7:4 God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. "All flesh died that moved upon the earth." God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23 2. Sodom and Gomorrah- "I will not destroy it for ten's sake." I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32 3. God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13 Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10 These are but three of an estimated 100 moral grievances I file against this Yahweh character as depicted in a book called the holy bible. I submit that this characters actions are divorced from any morality whatsoever and in fact are completely on the other end of the spectrum of a sociopathic, evil, genocidal, maniac with a thirst for blood that is never satiated.
Is God(Christian) a standard of morality to follow

Con will be arguing that the Christian God should not be a standard for morality. I will be Pro and arguing that the Christian God should be a good standard for morality. Com says that Yahweh of the Bible isn't a good standard for morality. I will investigate this claim, and then show otherwise. Yahweh is a Hebrew form for God the father. So Con claims God the Father is not a good moral standard, even making absurd claims of throwing his followers in prison. Let's look at the definition of "standard" per [1]. "generally accepted and used because of high quality." Con claims that morals of the Bible and God the Father shouldn't be widely accepted due because it is not high quality. Morals per [1]: "proper ideas and beliefs about how to behave in a way that is considered right and good by most people." Now that we've explored the definitions we can summarize Cons thesis thoroughly: "The Ideas and teachings and morals of the Bible, and of God the Father, shouldn't be widely accepted as right because they are not of high quality." Now to show why this statement is incorrect. God is a personal and loving god. He created man and loved man (Genesis 1). Man then disobeyed and sinned. God was disappointed in man, but he is a God of love, and grace and compassion. "The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all: he has compassion on all he has made." Psalms 145: 8,9. God has forgiveness for man, even though man disobeyed. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." God is offering forgiveness, and eternal life to all the earth, because he loves the earth so much. So far we've learned God has grace, compassion, love, mercy, and forgiveness. Those are all widely accepted and good morals. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:23-24. God is also Holy: "I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy." -Lev. 11:44. "Exalt the Lord our God and worship at his holy mountain for the Lord your God is holy." - Psalms 99:9. And for the nail in Con's coffin, God is perfect. "Be perfect, therefore as your Heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:48. "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." Romans 12:2. We see God is gracious, compassionate, loving, kind, forgiving, holy, sovereign, and perfect. These are widely accepted as good morals, and seem to be a wonderful standard for us to also strive to live by. Thank you. Sources: [1] Merriam Webster's (http://i.word.com...) The Holy Bible.
Metal (Pro) Vs. (Insert Genre Here)

I hope someone will debate this with me. I'm being completely serious here. You have to be 18 or older. I didn't want what I'm currently dealing with. I'll start off with statement of sorts: Most people that debate this don't know much about music and are genre-heads. (a. k. a listen to only one genre) I like most genres of music. But I do believe metal (not being specific) is the best genre overall. Anyone who disagrees, please accept. I'd look forward to a non-religion/political debate. Rules: 1. Just state what genre you think is better. 2. Golden Rule 3. HAVE FUN. :D 1st Round: Acceptance. 2nd Round: Start Debate 3rd: Counter 4th: Conclusion/Ending Arguments
Current Naruto (End Of Series) is stronger than Current Luffy (Dressrosa)

I will state from now (don't let this make your choice biased) I agree with you. i grew up with Naruto (finished the series) and I must say it was fabulous. But I will debate for Monkey D. Luffy. 1) Luffy has more raw strength 2) Luffy has only one weakness 3)Naruto has to charge, while Luffy doesn't Monkey D. Luffy is much stronger than Naruto Uzimake. Taking into consideration his Haki (Invisible Armour),Devil Fruit ( giving him the ability to stretch his body) His immense training for 2 years on Rayleigh, finally he beat up GOD. Luffy has only one weakness: Water. Naruto has many: including (but not limited too) Emotions (risked his whole life for Sasuke, the Antagonist/Protagonist at the end. Also for quite some time Sasuke hated Naruto. Even after his brother (Itachi) said he was on a mission for Konaha, Sasuke still wanted to destroy Konoha), his reckless abandon (rushing into battle). You can't say that Luffy doesn't rush into battle, but Naruto does it unprepared. When Naruto had no powers versing Mizuki, he almost died. If Osama wan't there, Naruto would have finished like that. But since Luffy has powers all the time, he is always prepared. When freeing Rorano Zoro, he freed him with ease. Also fighting Buggy he won again. Luffy has not lost accept when his opponents were using unfair methods. Crocodile used a hook and Devil Fruit Powers (sand). Luffy has won most of his battles single-handily. Naruto has not won a match without help except fighting the Kyuubi. I await your rebuttal.
Current Naruto (End Of Series) is stronger than Current Luffy (Dressrosa)

My Points: 1) Naruto is faster 2) Naruto is more destructive 3) Naruto has more stamina Naruto has been show on numerous occasions to be extremely fast, especially when he is in Gear 2nd however Naruto is faster. He in 9 tails chakra mode (before he got the SO6P power and full kyuubi mode) moved so fast that killer bee thought he was teleporting, he also dodged an attack from the raikage who was moving at the speed of lightning. Luffy may have stated lasers were too slow however naruto dodged chakra blast from toneri with ease who fired them at light pace. Naruto has multiple techniques that can devastate the terrain. Naruto big ball rasengan before any of his power ups could have destroyed an entire mountain. Luffy has destroyed a buildings,and punches someone through bedrock, which is the only displays of "destruction" Naruto's stamina is directly above naruto and everyone's else. Naurto has high stamina alone but with the kyuubi and SO6P his reserves are exponentially high. Naruto fought in the 4th shinobi world for more time than anyone 4 days and only was exhausted during his fight with sasuke after his arm got blown off
Current Naruto (End Of Series) is stronger than Current Luffy (Dressrosa)

Naruto fought for days and hasn't gotten tired since his final fight with Sasuke. Actually he almost died because his Kyuubi was removed. He only survived thanks to Gaara and Minato. On the official wikia it says (and I quote): "Naruto, dying from the removal of the Nine-Tails, is delivered to the reincarnated Minato Namikaze by Gaara so that the half of the Nine-Tails' chakra that Minato has can be sealed into him." He didn't go all the way until Sasuke. He almost died." Another way that Naruto needed help was that Kakashi and Obito helped them: I quote: "Obito and Kakashi use themselves as human shields to block the attacks, with Obito also using Kamui to save Kakashi as well, though at the cost of his own life." Luffy doesn't have these problems. When facing someone like Kaguya he would have easily been annihilated. BY HIMSELF. But with help (Naruto had help) She would have died to him. Also I would like proof that he has that RASENSHURIKEN that uses water. Not to be rude, I just wanted to see proof, than I'll except it. Also you said it yourself: "Naruto never destroyed an island." Exactly he can't. He can only destroy mountains and land forms. But not islands. Again: Naruto's stamina is directly above Naruto and everyone's else. Check.