BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be laws in every state defending homosexuals for being fired for their sexuality.

It's funny, I agree with the overwhelming majority of what you said. Homosexuality is a trait that is common in species from penguins To elephants to humans. And even if it is a "choice" the people have the right to engage in any kind of consensual relationship or sexual activity that they wish to engage in. So we have no disagreements there. So where do we disagree? Well I think the disagreement lies in whether or not an employer has the right to fire his employees for their sexual orientation. Bear in mind that I HATE the notion that someone would do something so stupid as to fire someone over something as inconsequential as who that person is attracted to. I'm against discriminating against people for superficial reasons in general, whether it is race, sexual preference, hair color or gender etc. But if you own a company, you have the right to hire and fire anyone for any reason. In the same way the employee has the right to quit or work for anyone for any reason. It is morally wrong to use force against non-violent people to force them to associate with people they would rather not accociate with. And secondly laws are words on paper. They have no magical properties to make a formerly homophobic person non homophobic. The perverbial " gun in the room" is still there.
There should be laws in every state defending homosexuals for being fired for their sexuality.

Okay, thanks for accepting, let's get started :) First of all, being gay is not "unnatural". In fact, homosexuality is present in over 450 different species. If you think that it's unnatural, just keep your opinion to yourself and don't try to destroy other people's happiness. http://www.yalescientific.org... If a gay person is fired from their job, for a ludicrous reason like being gay, it's possible that they will struggle to find a job. If they are supporting anyone, such as siblings, children, parents, etc, they will be hurt as well. I can't wrap my head around the fact that some people would not care about that, or think that they would deserve it, as they are just human beings too. Or it could even hurt the business that they used to belong to. If we don't have laws in place against that, all of those consequences could occur. Equality is a big part of America, and we should try to enforce it as much as possible, don't you think?
There should be laws in every state defending homosexuals for being fired for their sexuality.

In 29 states in the US, it is legal to fire people for being gay. Here are some examples: http://www.nydailynews.com... http://mic.com... If these people are not protected by laws against it, it can lead to struggling as an unemployed person, which isn't justified if they were fired for just being gay. This is awful homophobia, and it needs to be prevented in some way. Just join and state your argument if you want to debate it
gender equality is achievable.

The choices that are made do not impact whether or not there is policy or discrimination. Whether or not women take advantage of this or not, the world is fair to them. In history, I would say that there was discrimination, but that has changed. Women have the right to vote, women are becoming the breadwinners of their households, and women are becoming top tier military members. Just because they think that they are in a box does not mean that they are in a box, they are free to explore the world, equal to men, in America at least. You say all of the nice stuff are occupied by males, but what about the fact that 92% of workplace deaths are males? And how come women never complain about the gender disproportion in jobs like garbage collectors? All in all, I think that it is possible to achieve this by judging everything based on its merit and not looking at the age, gender, or race of the person producing it.
gender equality is achievable.

see..the difference in choice , you are talking about, is merely dependent on how differently individual is evolved. and you would surely agree to the fact there was no equal treatment for women (in america as well) in the history. that has created women to choose fields which are comparatively less honoured or less important because its there evolution what taught them stuffs and didnt taught many. thats the reason why all the nice stuffs are majorly occupied by males. so the history along with biology, leads to differentiate males and females on various grounds in such a way that we tend to picture males superier than females.
gender equality is achievable.

While men and women have different advantages, as they are different biologically, that is not what we are looking for here. We are looking for equal treatment among the 2. We are looking to see that women are not being discriminated against, in the job market and other places. We are not looking for 100% even treatment rather that each gets what they deserve. If women made great scientific discoveries then they would be acknowledged, and in the past some have, like Marie Curie. I do not watch cricket so I cannot speak on that, but there are almost always female equivalents for male sports in America, and did you ever think that there is a reason that women are less successful at entrpenaeurship. Women tend to be more empathetic (1) which may lead them to not take the steps needed to make the important decisions when it could hurt others. It can be reached by living in a free society. If we allow everyone to have a fair chance in life, which I think would be relatively easy to do. If we removed affirmative action, and college quotas and based everything in academia on intellectual merit then we would have equality. A lot of the inequality numbers are due to choice rather than societal disadvantages.
gender equality is achievable.

its not at all about how one treats women. i can make it by asking-' is the way same as how women treat men?'..now that might sound little xenoic. and yes , totally agreed by your equality definition. and thats what my concern is , i.e., whether the definition really follows. i can simply make u through some fields where the inequality is transparent--cricket, no. of famous scientists, or enterpreneurs. your probable next argument..thats not in our hand to have equal no. of male n female famous scientists. n yes , thats in nobody's hand. n thats the actuall issue here, though society gives nearlly equal opprtunitites, yet the results're not equal and thats the point where inequality starts and u go further, inequality broadens and widens. next when u take up cricket thing..its simply because women cricket is not much interesting bcoz women have not evolved in a manner to play cricket and then u get a way towards history from here. so basically i want to convey that no matter how you treat women or men , the inequality prevails due to inevitable reasons, something which is not in hand. Hence gender inequality is something beyond our reach.
gender equality is achievable.

Ok so since con has failed to structure the debate I will do so. Burden of proof is on con to prove that the genders are not equal using my definition of equality. First round is simply for acceptance and no new arguments in the last round. Equality the quality of being fair and impartial So con has to prove that women are not treated fairly in America and are somehow disadvantaged. I will be refuting their claims and making my own that women are not mistreated and actually may have an advantage in america. I look forward to a good debate.
Navy

You didn't specify which navy you're referring to, and the united states navy is meant to serve their country, as are all other branches of the military. With that being said, I believe that the ground troops (United States Army) are the most vital branch in war, this is because marines are sent to "loosen" up the war field, thus making it easier for the army to take control of a certain area. In a harsh desert, how can your navy make a difference, when they're a naval defensive force?
Which is better: Halo or Call of Duty

Thank you for that. Call of Duty is much better because of its somewhat realistic qualities and mostly realistic weapons. The thing that made Halo mostly great is Master chief, but now that Bungie has removed master chief of the story, Halo has to struggle to maintain the quality of play. While Halo may have a slightly better campaign, COD smashes Halo when it comes to multi-player. COD is well-know for it's amazing multi-player, that seems to sky-rocket the industry of COD. COD multi-player has many more maps and types of gameplay that exceed Halo by far.
Which is better: Halo or Call of Duty

Good day, Jamesteranov. I will be Rebutting your arguments on this topic. Call of Duty is a much better game. why exactly? Call of duty is a much bigger franchise. A new Call of duty is more exciting news for gamers all over the world than a new Halo. Call of Duty's storyline is more impressive and better told than Halo. Halo is basically aliens and monsters, while Call of duty takes a more serious story, wars where people go to serve. Owning both Call of Duty and Halo myself, I can definitely say Call of duty was a much more enjoyable experience than my time playing Halo!
Which is better: Halo or Call of Duty

An overall general introduction Halo. Why? Simple really... The story. very deep, engaging and emotional story that spawned many novels to make a truly unique and engaging universe. Everything connects. Plus the multiplayer which is more skilled based and balanced that MLG played the most. Plus the nostalgic award winning soundtrack. Audio is everything. And extra content (Forge, Custom Games, Theater, Firefight, Spartan Ops, Red Vs Blue, Forward Unto Dawn, Halo Legends, Arby 'n' the Chief, Best Vehicular Controls in any FPS etc,) Balanced and skill based multiplayer witch caters for the hardcore MLG players (Team S.W.A.T, MLG, Team Doubles etc. playlists) and casual gamers (Social Big Team, Griffball, Forge and custom games etc.) Great and solid gameplay - sandbox battles (not just a corridor shooter), vehicles, amazing unpredictable A.I. etc. Part 2 campaign maybe?
Short Poetry battle

Who is this giant? The one so large and proud.She implores a feeble one to chastise.She seeks a being who folds when her voice gets loud.A wanderer with not a blush of guilt.Will be scolded to a listless submission.For doing nothing more than giving her a listen.A listen to a giant's roaring shout.That shatters his heart and soul.Leaving in the spirit a gaping hole.
Short Poetry battle

The breakeven point in the sky rips apart, the ground below shakes their hearts. The silly wanderers loose themselves with a toy, at a folded bay. And the giant, seemingly bold, seemingly wise, she tells them to stop. All the wanderers turn around, weeping, for they don't have a say. But we're just having fun, they plead, spinning and shifting like sand. The giant stops them and they are caught in a thunderous, echoing yell. The wanderers weep again as they are trapped in the giant's hand. Their playtime is over,, their skin touched, and their heads bang each other like bells. The giant leaves, the scolding has ended. And the wanderer's hearts, broken.
Short Poetry battle

A sky like this, it holds nay a meaningThe only purpose that I can see Is only a purpose meant for meYou will show me the images you beholdBut to me their stories remain untoldThe stories of prosper you speak of so fondlyAre to me a series of troubles that show no lining of silverI wish the fighting could stop you knowYour sky sounds perfect in my world so lowBut I can only listen to your successes and gleeWhile I wallow in my world of me
Short Poetry battle

Poetry Battle. Make the shortest poem. 3 Rounds. 3 poems. Start at round one. 48 hours to create poem (in case of forgetfulness). Freestyle, can be made in any way you so desire, as long as it is technically a poem/song/masterpiece. Troll if you like, but with style and rhyme. I'll go first. There once was a meadow, full of open trees and feathers. The sky was dark as a pigeon, with the clouds getting sadder. Let the seas ascend, to a never ending bend. Whilst we dance with frozen cups, giving each other hugs. There is no end, there never was, why, I see no light - the sky! The sky! Oh joy! Now, we no longer need to fight. Thus, the fishes swim, and we die a happy death.
Short Poetry battle

She sweeps the floor with a gentle grace. And the earth rumbles like a full belly. She cooks a meal with a cunning taste And the trees wobble like jelly. She washes me with unconditional love. The brimming tides and ocean engulf the shore. She tells me she loves me. no matter what, okay? And lightning splits the mountains like the god, Thor. She hugs me and I say to her, Happy mother's day.
We should ban guns

I personally believe everybody who wants to have a gun and is law abiding and legal should be able to obtain one, all I want is for the background checks to be more secure, I don't think we should ban any guns or weapons, I just want slightly strong background checks just to make sure that the "law abiding citizens" truly are law abiding citizens. So all in all I am pro-gun and think people should have the rights to buy any gun.
We should ban guns

All I am saying is that by making background checks more secure, it allows mentally sane and law abiding citizens to be able to purchase weapons, and we can also filter out the criminals from attempting to purchase guns for acts of crime. when you have things like the Black Market, you can never stop a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally. Criminal act is always going to be around, by making sure law abiding citizens are able to purchase weaponry, we can ensure that there will always be the ability to counter an act of crime.
We should ban guns

Your argument is completely true. You stated that enforcing gun control would make it harder for normal citizens to buy a gun. But wouldn't banning guns make it impossible? Yes, criminals would still Illegally obtain guns. But with better gun control, wouldn't it make it harder for them to get? Law abiding citizens could pass the background tests and get a gun for their protection. Criminals would not, due to their previous record, and could not get a gun in this way. This is how we could make sure good people have guns, and the bad ones don't.
We should ban guns

Gun control won't help keep guns away from criminals. The only thing that gun control does is restrict or make it harder for the civilian to be armed and able to defend themselves. The majority of guns used in shootings on any scale have been proved to be obtained illegally, according to The Washington Post "They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else" This statistic blatantly shows us that making guns harder to purchase will only hurt the citizen. One thing I do agree with and what I think a lot of people agree with is the idea of stronger and more secure background checks, the Florida shooting is a perfect example, as he was able to equip a gun even though he was suffering from mental illness.
We should ban guns

Guns are horrible weapons. They don't need to fall into the hands of criminals. But making them Illegal? Wouldn't the criminals just smuggle guns, shoot us all, and then we would have to wait for the cops to get there instead of defending ourselves with our own guns? Fight fire with fire, I say. Now, I'm not saying we should continue on the way we have been already. People just go into stores, buy guns regardless of their age, and cause problems. Instead of banning guns, we should have stricter gun laws to prevent people like that from getting the guns in the first place, not ban them. Banning guns would likely cause riots. Some people love their guns way too much, and how quickly do you think that love would turn to hate if you took their guns away? Personally, never owning a gun, don't know the answer to that, but I can guess it wouldn't be very good. At the very least, the people would protest to remove the ban. You have to remember, these aren't your average nonviolent protesters, these are the people you just took GUNS away from. Overall, you should clearly be able to see that gun control is better than outright banning them.
i dead, am not being

You must be a troll, since if you wanted a truly meaningful debate, your debate would have at least definitions and decent grammar above that of a 5 year old's capabilities. When you say "life", I take it you mean dictionary definition. The definition (from Google) of life is: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." When you say "I", I also take it you mean the dictionary definition. The definition (also from Google) is: "used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself." And when you say "die", I take it you mean the dictionary definition. The definition (again, from Google) is simply: Stop living You are not life itself, but you are alive. They are different words for different meanings. One the other hand, if you're dead, you cease to be alive consciously, but part of you still remains alive (I.e. Nails, hair etc). However, you claim is so ambiguous that I'm not sure how exactly I should refute it (if that is even possible, since your claims seems to be "Not Even Wrong", and therefore unfalsifiable). Are you claiming that when you die, you become less "I"? Or are you claiming that you are no longer "being" when dead? Or are you claiming that you cannot die, since you are "life"? Or are you claiming that you yourself are "life"? Nonetheless, your speech is so embarrassingly bad for a 27 year old, that to form any coherent argument against a claim so incoherent is too difficult to bother. I'm not going to decode your nonsensical gobbledygook unless you make your claim clear next round. And provide dictionary definitions for your key words, evidence, and intellectually understandable grammar to support your claim. Otherwise, the only resolution we will come to from the debate is that you're an idiot. (And no, that is not an Ad Hominem as I am not using insults as a basis for my arguments against this unclear claim.)
i dead, am not being

No, I'm simply saying that your claim is unfalsifiable and can't be proven or debated as right or wrong. This debate is therefore irrelevant. If a claim is unfalsifiable, then the original claim cannot be resolved as either right or wrong. If you wanted a debate without the necessity of falsifiable evidence, then you should have characterised this debate under the "Philosophy" genre rather than the "Science" genre, as science depends on falsifiable evidence to support claims. Or you could characterise the debate under the "Funny" genre as it's quite obviously a troll debate, where you proceed to give no evidence for your claims throughout the debate besides poorly structured sentences.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

My opponent makes the claim that "disbelief is not non-belief" to which I am inclined to agree. However, disbelief in one god still does not equate to the belief in another deity, which is required for atheism to be considered a religion. Again, this argument is like saying neither cats nor dogs are birds so they must be the same as one another. It simply isn't true. In order to win this debate, my opponent must prove that atheism is a religion itself, rather than the fact that it opposes other religions.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for this debate. Now, while my opponent did provide definitions, I'm not sure what (s)he* means by them. In the case that he does not provide a source for where he found said definitions, I will provide my own. Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural (1) Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods (2) Atheism, by definition, cannot be a religion because one cannot serve or worship that which they don't believe exists. To address my opponent's claim that atheism is a religion due to its disbelief in another religion's deities, I must say that is like saying an apple is not a banana and neither is an orange, therefore an apple and an orange must be the same thing. It does not hold up logically. The disbelief in one god does not automatically equate to the belief in another, therefore it does not make atheism a religion based on that argument. I look forward to the next round! * I will refer to my opponent using male pronouns (he/him/his) as I'm not sure of their gender. (1) https://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Tablets should NOT replace textbooks K-12 schools

Um.... ok well I will still refute but voters you should give me all 7 points. REFUTES 1.Health Well in these cases teachers can give students stands so they don't keep looking down to take away strain on the neck. Also teachers could give students breaks to keep strain from the eyes. In the health situation textbooks would be even worse. Textbooks way over 5 pounds. According pediatricians and chiropractors students who carry textbooks usually carry more than 15% of there body weight. [1] According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, during the 2011-12 school year more than 13,700 kids, aged 5 to 18, were treated for backpack-related injuries.[2] 2.Distraction For the brightness concept the teacheror administrators can lock the brightness at low. For the apps the teacher or administartors can lock the tablet on the certain app. 1.5.Thomas Adams, "Textbook Weight in California: Data and Analysis," California Department of Education website, Apr. 14, 2004 2.Mary Elizabeth Dallas, "Overloaded Backpacks Can Injure Kids: Experts," nlm.nih.gov, Aug. 26, 2012