BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is hypocritical and ideologically inconsistent to criticize a movie for its lack of trans people

Not, it is not hypocritical nor ideologically inconsistent to criticize a movie for its lack of LGBTQ representation. Something interesting that you seem to be forgetting, the LGBTQ community is not just transgender people. But I guess you just chose to take that aspect for this debate. Anyway, here goes. Being honest, many actors/actresses who are transgender are pretty open about. Obviously, not all of them are, we don't know, but these people complaining were wishing that OPENLY LGBTQ people were represented. I mean, a movie where one of the actors/actresses is closeted is not going to have a huge impact for the LGBTQ community. To show that the LGBTQ community also has a talented pool of actors/actresses, you'd need someone who isn't in the closet about their sexuality. Someone who has made it clear they are gay or lesbian or transgender or bisexual or queer. Maybe they were assuming these people's gender but at the same time, if a person doesn't let you know what gender they identify as (or don't identify as), there is no way for you to know. People see me and say I'm a girl. That's the way it is. Most transgender people don't expect you to somehow know through mind games, in fact, many of them are hypersensitive about the way they portray themselves in public. A lot of them are in situation where revealing they are transgender could get them hurt or worse. No one expects you to know. if they want you to know, they'll tell you. One more point, this debate is framed very bad. The whole "assuming their gender" is not something transgender people actually say. It something cisgender people say to make fun or make light of transgender people. It's rude and I myself have been known to use it in the past. Just saying, it's not funny and it's offensive to poke fun of someone because of the way they identify. "Assuming someone's gender" actually does not necessarily offend transgender people. If you said: "Omg, Sally totally just assumed your gender, Ella." Ella might take more offense at the fact that you're making fun of her rather than Sally assuming her gender.
It is hypocritical and ideologically inconsistent to criticize a movie for its lack of trans people

Despite the hyper-progressive nature of Black Panther, PC culture still managed to criticize it for not being PC enough due to a lack of LGBTQ representation. To those who agree with this I ask: did you just assume their gender? How do you know all the biological women in Black Panther identify as women? How do you know the biological men in Black Panther identify as men? For all we know, half the people in Black Panther are trans. Is assuming they're cis not essentially the same as assuming their gender? Is it possible to criticize the lack of trans people in cinema without assuming their gender?
It is hypocritical and ideologically inconsistent to criticize a movie for its lack of trans people

Sorry for not exactly answering your point. I was still confusing transgender actors with transgender representation. Anywho, I think there are ways a transgender character can be revealed as transgender without explicitly saying it. Since they are a character, they are probably on a TV show, movie, or a book of some kind. The author or writer can use flashbacks to show that the character was born a different gender than they identify with. Possible ways to do it without explicitly saying "I am transgender" 1. Dialogue Person 1: "Hey Mary! Long time no see! How are you?" Person 2: I go by Jacob now. 2. Man and a woman go on a date (inspired by a Google Doodle) They are at the movie theater and the woman takes out her purse to buy tickets. Her ID falls out. The man picks it up and the ID picture is a man who kind of looks like his girlfriend. He confronts her a bout it and she says that isn't her anymore. 3. A character goes to the doctor to get hormonal therapy 4. A male character gives birth 5. A character tell the doctor they are going to do the full switch Obviously the movie, book, etc. could do it better than me but these are just some ways. However, what I've realized is that saying one is transgender isn't bad. So you're wrong in that there are only 3 ways tor reveal you are transgender but you're right in that saying "I am transgender" is one way to do it.
It is hypocritical and ideologically inconsistent to criticize a movie for its lack of trans people

"And come ON, what"s wrong with wanting representation?" - Nothing. My point is that representation, if one were to collectively consider gender identity politics, becomes virtually impossible without having an obvious male walk around in a dress. Consider this. Suppose a trans actor plays a female character. This character is trans but at no point does the character say "I am trans", at no point does the character make any mention of when she was a man, at no point is the character nude. Would you consider this an "openly trans character"? And I stress the word CHARACTER and not actor. Is this an openly trans character? "It doesn"t mean going around and saying "I"M TRANSGENDER! I"M TRANSGENDER!" It means not hiding it." - Give me an example of a hypothetical trans character "not hiding" without the character explicitly making mention of their own transness. A gay character can, for example, kiss another man. That would be indicative of his homosexuality without him saying "I am gay". Now give me a similar scenario for a trans character that indicates they are trans without a) telling someone they are trans b) going into detail about their own history when they used to be considered a member of a different sex c) a reference to their genitals "Sarah was born a boy but identifies as a woman. She is also an actress. At first, she was afraid that coming out to the world would ruin her career but she realizes that she isn"t afraid of that anymore. She has a large social media following and reveals that she was born a boy. " - This is virtually identical to saying "I AM TRANS" which, if you'll recall, you denied earlier regarding whether it's necessary. A gay character can be gay without "coming out as" gay. How do you suggest a trans character is portrayed without him/her "coming out"?
Is Eminem the best rapper of 2018

I like your argument it is awesome this is my first time. You are right some of is songs are inappropriate for kids but a lot of raper is the same way. But if you get past that he has really good songs like lose your self was made when i was born and it is still on of the greatest hits. and his new song the river is one of the best on he ever created. I have question are you an Eminem fan? anyways he is really talented raper i mean who can rap has fast has he can and make it sound good when does rap fast for example have you heard rap God before that is amazing and music critics where impressed how fast he can rap. Now I'm not saying Eminem is a rap god because he not but he is the best raper of 2018. Thank you for choosing this challenge you are super amazing at this thank you for arguing respectful you are doing great like i said my first time doing this o i will not be a challenge.
Is Eminem the best rapper of 2018

thank you for your time today in arguing this topic, I do strongly believe that Eminem is indeed NOT the best rapper of 2018. My first point is on lyrics. So my opponent would like you to believe that his lyrics come from the heart and that they are discussing the problems of his life. Also some of his songs are like this there are 2 reasons why i believe this shouldnt be valued. 1. Not everyone is in the same scenarios that his songs pertain to. That makes it so his lyrics are hard to relate with a general audience. 2. His newer songs are vulgar and inappropriate for most listeners In the Status Quo a major topic discussion has been on the acts of hate speech and social media regulations- there was a man in Pennsylvania that wrote threatening notes to his ex wife. It got so bad it got to the point where she got a restraining order on him - he ended up being put jail and will remain there for many years to come. Now you may wonder why I would waste my time talking about this story. But i do have a point. I want to look at specifically Eminem's song Bonnie and Clyde- this song has an interesting story when you actually look to what it says. It talks about killing his wife and throwing her body into a lake. Now...doesn't this seem to be just the same thing as the PA man? I believe that it is unjust for Eminem to be able to spread his ideas through his music. If you believe what the pro has told you, and you think his lyrics are something that can inspire you and you can relate- the world is about to become a place where harassment and murder is the norm. He is not the best rapper because the flaws and the abuse of his power and influence in today's society
Is Eminem the best rapper of 2018

well it is hard to find who is the best raper of 2018 but i think it is Eminem because his songs come from his heart talking about his life. Not some song that was put together in 3 seconds and cues in every sentence kind of song the music has to flow and Eminem is really good at that. So what do you think is Eminem the best raper of 2018?
Marijuana should be legal

Marijuana is not on the same caliber as murder first of all. It is not a harmful drug. It actually helps people who suffer cancer cope with the pain of their everyday lives. Do you want the government to arrest a cancer patient for simply consuming marijuana to improve their painful and suffering filled lifestyle? Also, the revenue from marijuana would be a very significant amount. Say 30 billion dollars are spent on marijuana with a 6% tax rate in 1 year. 1.8 billion dollars would subsequently be added to the government's revenue. That's a lot of money if you ask me. The marijuana control costs would be paid for in about 39 years. Seems like a long time, however would we rather be gaining money? Or losing it? As for the government bit, isn't this country "the land of the free"? This means people are free to purchase what they want for whatever purposes they want. FREE ENTERPRISE my friend. You are infringing on it!! People shouldnt be told not to buy marijuana if they want to buy it. The health of marijuana you bring up seem to be more of the effects of cigarettes rather than weed. Cigarettes are much more likely to cause cancer, so do you think cigarettes should be illegal too? Or are you going to say they arent as bad. Because they are. Also, I have noticed one of your sources is based on ALCOHOLISM. There is NO alcohol involved in this matter. This is an unreliable source. As for the Advil part, marijuana is much more potent than Advil. I take Advil and it doesn't work sometimes for me. People can get even more addicted to the pills as oppose to marijuana, which is NOT an addictive drug. Your rebuttal?
Marijuana should be legal

I believe that marijuana should be legalised in the United States. Here are some facts: $70 billion are spent a year on stopping marijuana use. Taxing marijuana would significantly boost government funding. People who smoke marijuana seem to have less problems with pain and headaches. This may seem weak to begin, however I would like for a person against marijuana legalisation in the United States to offer their argument before I really start to bring my arguments to the table.
Hate crime enchantments are unjust in the United states

Before I argue your points I've got to argue your sources. After reading your first paragraph I realized it looked strangely familiar. Then I realized that a good half of it was word for word from Wikipedia. I don't know if there's a law of ethics concerning whether it's okay to read straight from a debate someone else has already written but I just thought I'd point it out to anyone reading this argument that quite a portion of my opponent's opening speech was straight off Wikipedia. Next sketchy source you used is Nat Hentoff. A columnist? I'm a columnist too. I write for the teen section of my local newspaper. I've written columns about the criminal justice system too. Should I be quoted in a debate? No. I'm 14 years old. I've no idea who Nat Hentoff is; he could be just like me for all I know. Tamara Roleff. Wow, look what I just found out. You didn't even say what profession she was, so I decided to look her up. And I've just found your entire debate online, WORD FOR WORD, West Coast Publishing sound familiar to you? Wow, okay, look, I thought you made some really great points in the opener and I was looking forward to arguing them. But obviously you've just gone and cut and paste everything. I could do the same, but sorry, I'm going to go ahead and forfeit upcoming rounds. I regret taking this debate now. [Remember that if you could find an entire debate online, your opponent probably can too.]
Hate crime enchantments are unjust in the United states

"lol ermm actually this is not from wiki at all i didnt use wiki. Other than that you havent responded to my v or vc or contentions so i might as well extend them." wikipedia, debateapedia, it's all the same. i don't much care for responding to copy and pasted contentions so i'm just not going to, i quit. go ahead and extend if you want. blocksclass.com/ddf/New%20Folder/HateCrimesPart1MarchApril08.doc http://wiki.idebate.org... if you're in debate class and trying to get someone to write contentions or whatever for you then just say so. this is like the ultimate cheat site, there's plenty of people willing to share information with you, dude that's what i do. if you just felt like trying to look really smart or something i mean... that's pathetic.
The use of force to prevent abortion is justified.

Well I don't really have a whole lot to work with here but whatever. My opponents argument is that it is justifiable to use force (as this hasn't been elaborated on I'm going to assume it's against the mother or maybe even the doctor) because killing a fetus is, in the eyes of my opponent, is essentially killing an innocent person, the prevention of which is deemed morally necessary. The problems with this argument is that it fails to take into account the unique relationship the mother has with the fetus and the circumstances which surround abortion. It is difficult to elaborate without knowing what my opened means by 'force' and as this is 5 round debate I will allow him the next round to clarify. It is not justifiable, for example, the punch a woman in the face to prevent her from going to an abortion clinic and in such places where abortion is legalised it is just plain stupid to think that such an action is justifiable. By using force to prevent an abortion you are essentially preventing a person from accessing a service that it is their right as a citizen to br able to take advantage of if they so choose.
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

But what can be considered a threat to a nation? , yes that can include bomb threats, but there are situations in which the leader of a country is in a position in which others oppose. The soldiers who enlisted in fighting for their country must stand behind their decision in being a part of the army and listening to orders. This is what Madea did, she made her decision and stood behind it. This would make Jason the one who failed, or "lost". He failed at being a faithful husband and father, to go after the king"s daughter for money. He was being selfish and because of this he ended up with nothing. He "bit off more than he could chew." Again he made her suffer and she returned the pain. In book II on "What is emotion" by Seneca he states, "Anger, however, must not only be set in motion: it has to break out, since it is an impulse." She killed her children out of impulse.
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

A soldier is defending a nation against a threat. Medea's children are no threat to Jason or to her. They are a reminder that she has failed. They remind her she wasn't good enough for Jason and that he used her for her magic. She feels used and rejected and she refuses to me reminded of that when she looks into their eyes and holds there hands. The revenge against Jason is a solution to her anger but the loss of the reminder of her failure is nothing more than selfish satisfaction of her failures. She already killed Jason's uncle she then kills the King and his daughter. isn't there enough blood shed already on her hands. she is no longer seeking revenge she is doing this for he own good and is showing the she will continue to kill innocent lives until she feel for filled. her children may not be the last of the blood shed.
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

Madea found a way to make Jason feel completely damaged. He would have grief for the rest of his life. She was overpowered by her pride, by her fury and because of that she did what she thought was necessary and if it was necessary to get revenge on Jason, to kill their children, then it was what she had to do. she states that, "I am overcome by troubles." It is something beyond her. If a soldier had to kill for his country there wouldn't be question about it. He stands his ground and does what is necessary and what in his mind is best for the country, And in her mind killing her children was best.
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

While she was betrayed by her husband and has every right to be angry with him there is no liable reason for her to murder her children. Her children are innocent in this how ordeal and do not deserve to be punished because of their fathers betrayal. She states that she know what she is doing is wrong and unforgivable but she goes through with it regardless of consequences. She is guilty of the murder of her children and should not be exempt because her marriage failed. She can use magic to obtain the golden fleece she could use magic to seek revenge while leaving the children out of it.
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

When she states, "Do I want to make myself ridiculous, letting my enemies go unpunished? I must go through with this.", she is stating that she wants revenge on her former husband Jason. It is something she MUST do. She does not want to be made a fool of. Madea helped Jason by using her magic to complete tasks to gain the golden fleece, which he does. She helped him out of love. He then leaves Madea for King Creon's daughter to gain fortune. He betrayed her. Madea knows that the only revenge that would really affect Jason would be the death of his children.She has pride and she is full of passionate anger, she had to hurt him in a way that he would never forget her. On page 112 in the comments section it states, " Nothing less than this will punish Jason for what he has done."
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

I begin my argument that Medea is guilty of committing infanticide because she admits to wanting to kill her children. She speaks to herself weighing the possibility of killing her children in order to seek revenge on her ex-husband. She states "Do I want to make myself ridiculous, letting my enemies go unpunished? I must go through with this." clearly speaking of killing her children for the reason of revenge against her husband. She also states "If there is anyone who should not be present at my sacrifice, that will be up to them. I shall not weaken my hand. She shows no concern or remorse for the children and seems very determined in committing infanticide.
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

She does state, "I know that what I am about to do is bad, but anger is master of my plans, which is the source of the greatest troubles for humankind" but within the phrase she states that her anger is the master of her plans. Anger which is her impulse, which is controlling her reasoning and action. Once one reaches a certain state of anger their mind does not correspond with their actions. Seneca states, in Book II "What is an Emotion", "Anger is a motion which outleaps reason and drags it along." He also states the phases in which emotions begin, grow or get carried away. Seneca states that the first movement is involuntary, the next is voluntary but not insistent and the third really is out of control; wanting retribution not just "if it is right" but at all costs, it has completely overcome the reason. In Madea's case, she has gone to the third phase in which her anger got out of HER control. She wanted vengeance at all costs and because of this she did not have reason. Since she did not have reason, she did not have control and because of this, her children's lives were taken away not by her, but by her anger towards her unfaithful and selfish husband, Jason.
Is Medea guilty of committing infanticide

You claim she killed her children from impulse yet synonyms for impulse are spur, thought, whim, wish, desire and spontaneity; none of these including an impulse require pre-thought. Medea thought and debated the challenge of killing her children. she was not impulsive she was premeditated, thoughtful and conscience of her actions. she know what she is going to do, she debated it through out the play. she made her decisions knowing it was wrong she states "I know that what I am about to do is bad, but anger is master of my plans, which is the source of the greatest troubles for humankind". She is clearly stating that she knows this is wrong and shouldn't be done, she admits to being in the wrong mind set and tries to blame her decision on anger and the power it has over her. but by admitting she has knowledge of this she she saying she could stop it but the desire she has to for fill her revenge is much great to her then the lives of her children. you may claim the anger was impulsive and it must break out once set in motion, but she set the anger in motion herself by allowing the single thought of harming children into her mind. she is allowing the power of pride over come the power of love for her children.
Bertering is the best form of trade

There's one fatal flaw in bartering that makes it unfeasible. Let's say you make shoes and I'm a cattle herder. I want shoes, but one pair of shoes is not worth an entire cow. I can't trade in partial cows because that's very messy and the value of the cow goes down because it's dead. You're willing to trade the shoes for a service though right? Wrong. I'm an old crippled man in a wheel chair. Trade has just broken down. I don't view my item to be worth the same as yours, and I'm unable to fullfil a task for you. Here's a new scenario: As a cattle herder, I pay my workers with wine. Francis and Jimmy like red wine, which I can get across the street for half a cow each. Arnold only likes white wine though. Nobody in our town makes/sells white wine. I now have to leave the town in search for white wine. Instead of just handing Arnold $50 for his labor, I have to go out of my way to find something he's willing to trade for. Trade has just broken down because somebody doesn't want what I have to offer. These two scenarios are why legal tender makes commerce much easier.