BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Are Only 2 Genders

Ok, I know you took a lot of the with the definitions and language, But I am going to explain it simply. I think you can agree biologically there are 2 sexes. The problem is relying on dictionaries to define gender. Every single definition is different. Google's dictionary states 'the state of being male or female'. We need to rely on biology instead of dictionaries. You said that sex in different from gender, Which isn't entirely true. Gender is determined by sex (i. E. XX = female, XY = male). We aren't talking about what boys and girls are supposed to like. Even though generally boys don't like 'girly' things, And girls don't like 'boyish' things, It isn't universal. But, Just because they don't like those things, Or they don't 'feel' like their gender, Doesn't change anything. I think most people and I can agree that people can like whatever they like. They can do their hair however they like. They can think however they like. But, Those factors are irrelevant when talking about biology. Regarding intersex people, They aren't a third gender. They have a serious physical disorder. To explain my point, I will explain this. In school, We learn people have 10 fingers, Which is just basic biology. If someone doesn't have ten fingers, Then they aren't normal, Just like people who are intersex. They aren't normal, So we can't. Deem it a 'third gender'. If we deemed intersex a third gender, By that logic, People born with 3 arms are perfectly normal. People born with 11 fingers are perfectly normal. As you know, This just isn't true. To conclude, You aren't a boy based on what things you like. You aren't a boy based on what hairstyle you have. You are a boy based on you chromosomes and cells. You can't simply change it however you want. For me, I don't care if you get operations done. I start to care when you force me to call you by your preferred pronouns. You can't change pronouns like you can change your name, Because what pronouns you have are based on your sex. Your name isn't based on anything, So therefore changing your name is perfectly fine, But not your pronouns.
There Are Only 2 Genders

I have no idea what the difference is between a sex=gender person and a sex determines gender person. These are equal statements. If you agree gender is determined by anything else then multiple genders follow immediately. Again, This is just semantics at this point. Language has everything to do with this argument and you're pretending it isn't so. I'd be interested to hear a statement from a biology phd that said intersex always equates to male or female, Because everything I've read states otherwise. (. https://www. Britannica. Com/science/intersex) Parents do tend to choose for their children and butcher their bodies to conform to what a doctor may recommend, But that doesn't make it moral to do so. Just because you have no sympathy or empathy for people who don't associate with gender norms doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're pretending that just because they don't exist to you that they don't exist. It's silly. Similar arguments could be drawn for calling blacks 3/5ths of people during slavery eras. Equally arbitrary. Your anecdote about 'one time this happened to me' doesn't counter my claim that the event is rare at all. Rare doesn't mean it never happens. It means it is rare. I went further and said they even more so rarely yell at you if you are at least showing a modicum of effort at trying. If you don't want to say pronouns that they want, Don't. Just address them by name. It isn't difficult. Again, Anyone would be rude to you if they said their name was John and you said "No. You're Jennifer. " To conclude, My opponent has taken my claim that the whole issue is a language game and said "no, Biology. " Even as he argues that intersex people don't exist, And that they all can be put under the 'female' or 'male' umbrella. A patently false statement from a biological perspective. Language has evolved once again. A significant portion of the population agrees that sex is a biological definition and gender identity is a social construct of norms and how we act. (as far as I can tell, There are no hard stats on this yet) Contrary to my opponent's stubbornness, This is how language has evolved regardless of his agreement upon it. You aren't required to agree. You aren't required to associate with these people on friendly terms, But in the end all you're doing is looking like a dick to people who otherwise may be your friends, Purchase your products, Et cetera. You have nothing to gain from not at least addressing them by the noun they choose. Just be glad you're part of the norm. Remember, Society evolves with or without you. Gays are now accepted as normal instead of being hunted regardless of how you feel about the matter. This will be no different. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
I won't contradict myself

==Questions==1. Are you an atheist?2. Do you believe that aliens probably exist?3. Do you believe that drugs that only harm the user should be legalized?4. Should Neo-Nazists be allowed to publically rally? 5. Does the goverment have a responsibility for general human rights outside of America?6. Do inanimate objects have emotions?7. Should public nudity be allowed?8. Do you support Obama and his views?9. Should the Goverment stop other countries from being able to defend themselves?10. Can nuclear weapons be harmful to the people?
I won't contradict myself

1: is everyone born with rights? yes 2:do we all have the right to life? yes 3:Do you believe in Evolution? no 4:Do you believe in supernatural events? yes 5:Is the world a sad place? yes 6:Have you stopped supporting Neo-Nazism? I never supported them, but i suppose that means the answer is no 7:Do we all have the right to die? Yes 8:Do you trust the United States Government? yes 9:Should the government protect its people and society? yes 10:Should we all have social freedoms? yes
I won't contradict myself

I ask that my opponent bold, italize, or underline my questions before his answers, just to clarify things.==Questions==1. Is everyone born with rights?2. Do we all have the right to life?3. Do you believe in Evolution? 4. Do you believe in supernatural events?5. Is the world a sad place?6. Have you stopped supporting Neo-Nazism?7. Do we all have the right to die?8. Do you trust the United States Goverment?9. Should the goverment protect its people and society?10. Should we all have social freedoms?
I won't contradict myself

I've seen a few of these on DDO and i thought it would be fun rules: Con asks 10 yes or no questions per round. if con sees i make a contradiction, than he points it out in his next round. i can defend and say why it isnt a contradiction If voters see that I make a contradiction in the round, Give points to con, if not give points to me If either person breaks rules, other debater automatically wins Best of luck! have fun!
I won't contradict myself

I ask that the readers look in the comments section for the remainder of our arguments. The rest of my arguments will also be there.==Contradictions==1. No one's rights are infringed when Neo-Nazists are allowed to publically rally. You can choose to not listen - and they cannot inflict any bodily harm on you. Quite frankly, they are only exercising their free right to speech. The pursuit of happiness is achieveable as long as you ignore them, and you will continue to live, for their actions are only verbal.2. That is a careless error on your part. You have done almost nothing to defend your words.3. Whether or not it is disgusting, it is part of people's "rights". What is disgusting and not disgusting is completely subjective and your own opinion - the nudists themselves obviously find nothing wrong.
I won't contradict myself

defending 1:People are allowed to exercise their rights and freedoms until they infringe on other people's rights. Neo-nazism is a clear example of infringement. In the Declaration of independence, it is clearly stated that all men have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is very difficult to pursue happiness when there are people in the streets preaching that non-whites should be killed. this also defies their rights to life, for that matter 2:I never specified what weapons the government should stop the production of, had my opponent specified nukes, he would have gotten a different response. Nevertheless, if the government had tried to stop all production of nukes, they would not get results, people would rebel and make nukes. 3:Again, the infringement of rights would not allow this freedom to be exercised. Most people would prefer not to see nude people in public. It is frankly disgusting. I will answer questions in comments due to little room.
I won't contradict myself

==Contradictions==1. In Round Two, my opponent stated that "We all should have social freedom" and that we all have rights, which implies that we all should be able to say whatever we want. However in Round Three, he stated that Neo-Nazists should NOT be allowed to publicly rally, a clear example of the violation of there freedoms. 2. In Round Two, my opponent stated that the Government should protect its people and society. Then in Round Three, he stated that nuclear weapons are harmful to our people and society. This means that the government should take action against the production of nuclear weapons, but in Round Three, he stated that the government should NOT try to stop other countries from developing weapons, such as nukes.3. In Round Two, my opponent stated that we all have social freedoms and in Round 2 he said that we all have rights, but in round 3 he stated that public nudity should not be allowed. The rest is in the comments section, as I have run out of room.
I won't contradict myself

1. Are you an atheist? no 2. Do you believe that aliens probably exist? no 3. Do you believe that drugs that only harm the user should be legalized? no 4. Should Neo-Nazists be allowed to publically rally? no 5. Does the goverment have a responsibility for general human rights outside of America? yes 6. Do inanimate objects have emotions? no 7. Should public nudity be allowed? no 8. Do you support Obama and his views? no 9. Should the Goverment stop other countries from being able to defend themselves? no 10. Can nuclear weapons be harmful to the people? yes
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states

Gay marriage should definitely be legal in all 50 states. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Lets talk about kids. If same-sex marriage were legal, imagine how many children would be adopted and taken out of the foster systems. Let's say one woman has a biological child and have a partner (who's also a woman). If they live in a state where same sex marriage isn't legal, if the biological mother were to pass away, her partner wouldn't have the right to the child. That's putting ANOTHER child into the foster system. We also need to think about the fact that gay and lesbians are people who should have the right to be married to each other.
Homophobic

I apologise for not posting my source in the prior round, it is here: http://utminers.utep.edu...Re: 1.Per debate rules and customs, you did forfeit round two. It will likely on result in a loss of conduct points.Re: 2.Con says that he has not said that because God says so that we must believe there is nothing wrong with homophobia.However, if we look to round three, he says "[it is okay to be homophobic because] it's what God thinks. period", and then goes on to give a couple of sources that we are asked to read. The quote that I used specifically tells us that he used an Appeal to Heaven argument, which is inherently fallacious and dangerous to use. A lot of the sources that con has used thus far cite the bible's passages which have been open to mass disagreement. Some people believe that 'abomination' was used in a different way, and this can be seen in [1]. Some people believe that the Bible is just a storybook, that all works are works of fiction.In any case, my opponent places an unnecessary trust in the Bible without explaining why. This is inherently fallacious, so vote con.[1]. http://richardwaynegarganta.com...
Homophobic

I ask the voter to make note that my opponent forfeited a round which is almost never a good thing while in a debate. I will provide refutations to my opponent's argument in this round, since the burden was never said to be shared. If I refute my opponent's arguments well enough then I win this debate. My opponent says that being homophobic is justified and that there is nothing wrong with homophobia because God says so. However, this is a major logical fallacy, as the University of Texas explains [1] the fallacy known as the 'Appeal to Heaven'. "An extremely dangerous fallacy of asserting that God has ordered, supports or approves one's own standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible" (edited out parentheses for a smaller quote) is what the University of Texas says. My opponent's argument is based around fallacious reasoning, that because God has said something that it must be true and that one cannot argue with it. However, this is a major error in logic, because it is comparable to "God has ordered me to kill my children. He has ordered me to do so, so I must without further thought", which is absurd to think. My opponent's entire argument is based around this fallacious reasoning, and because all of the argument is fallacious, we can throw out the entire argument. This means that my opponent has 0 standing arguments left, while they still hold the burden.
Homophobic

I accept.Definitions:Homo-: homosexual-phobia: an irrational fearHomophobia: an irrational fear of homosexualsIrrational: not logical or reasonablePro has the BoP to prove that there is absolutely nothing (not even one thing!) wrong with homophobia, while I do not have any sort of BoP. If I prove there is one thing wrong with homophobia I win.
Resolved: The U.S. should Reinstate Regan Era Brilliant Pebbles.

My opponent didn't post his argument here making it difficult to respond but I'll try. In any case he should post his next argument here. There's a reason for the character limit. Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that without Brilliant Pebbles, nuclear war is inevitable. First off let me point out that brilliant pebbles is not, and hasn't ever been activated, yet we have no nuclear wars. He then describes a situation in which Russia, China and America all start shooting missiles nuclear missiles off. If that happens we're all dead anyway. Rebuttal 2: I concede the point about us having the technology. But just because we have it does not mean we should use it. I'll state more, later in my contentions. Contention 1: The technology is outdated. If you look at my opponents argument, his most recent source regarding Brilliant Pebbles is from 1993. There's a reason we never launched Brilliant Pebbles. It's outdated technology. It's was a concept in the 80's from SDI. SDI was routinely mocked and called "Star Wars". Brilliant Pebbles was their best idea but SDI was still disbanded which brings me to my next point. Contention 2: Activation of Brilliant Pebbles would be pointless What if I told you we already had spaced based defenses against ICBMs? Don't believe me? Enter the Missile Defence Agency. According to the agency's web-page( http://www.mda.mil...) : "The Missile Defense Agency's mission is to develop, test and prepare for deployment of a missile defense system. Using complementary interceptors, land-, sea-, air- and space-based sensors, and battle management command and control systems, the planned missile defense system will be able to engage all classes and ranges of ballistic missile threats. Our programmatic strategy is to develop, rigorously test, and continuously evaluate production, deployment and operational alternatives for the ballistic missile defense system. Missile defense systems being developed and tested by MDA are primarily based on hit-to-kill technology. It has been described as hitting a bullet with a bullet - a capability that has been successfully demonstrated in test after test." In conclusion, why should we spend $44 billion dollars on an outdated defense system, when we already have better alternatives in place?
Mass Immigration to Western Countries Has Caused Skyrocketing Crime Rates

I think my honorable opponent makes a basic mistake. People coming from these countries have not been "sent". They flee their native lands because of terrorism, not to bring it here. I am for better screening but that does not mean simply ruling refugees out. Most right-wing extremists say better screening and think that we imagine less migrants right away. No! No! No! Better screening means kicking out only the bad INDIVIDUALS and not preventing refugees seeking asylum. Along with battling terrorism we have to battle with stereotypes and racism, too. You cannot expect from people who are insulted day-in-and-day-out to become an integrated part of our society.
Mass Immigration to Western Countries Has Caused Skyrocketing Crime Rates

You have a point when it comes to politicians and the people that vote them; however, the countries where these migrants come from are not sending their best. They are sending terrorists and welfare moochers. The migrants who come here and actually become functioning members of society and assimilate are few and far in between. I am for better screening of migrants who come here and only letting in people who are actually fleeing persecution rather than a developing country and responsible politicians who do not just let in people by the thousands in the name of virtue signalling. As for migrants being third generation, there are no statistics that prove that claim.
Mass Immigration to Western Countries Has Caused Skyrocketing Crime Rates

I cannot argue that the crime rates haven't gone up. You cannot argue with the very facts. However, I will argue that not the immigration ,alone, has caused that, but the terrible handling of the immigration "crisis" by the politicians and by the people themselves. In this spirit, we should also acknowledge that most and the worst crimes have not been committed by migrants in the recent "crisis". Unfortunately, the most severe attacks have been executed by third generation migrants who grew up in western societies. That means that something with our system of integration is not working properly and should be fixed. The politicians are not the only ones who created and maintain the problem. In lots of states the issues are subject only of an election campaign. After it has concluded the parties that were in favor of change suddenly forget it. The next election they again begin that debate and win seats in parliament and that goes on and on without a reached solution. Therefore it is obvious that people also have responsibility not only for their attitude towards humans with different skin color and race but for the way they vote.
Feminism equality has been achieved these are just women looking for handouts

Pro will address the following:- Women can work the same jobs as men.- Women are not physically able to join certain military jobs.Notice that the pro is not addressing the point of age, pay or personal freedom anymore, please refer to the comments for further information on that. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...Extend all evidence from Round 2 to this round as con has failed to disprove a single one. In addition, review the evidence offered this debate through the usnews.nbcnews link. As the link shows, a female veteran of our armed forces believes that some women in the military are more than capable of beating the tests. They are not demanding a lowering of standards, they're saying that they can beat men at their own game but aren't allowed to. This invalidates the Cons arguments of lessening our special forces abilities.SummaryAs even with the modified resolution the pro has still succeeded in proving that women are not allowed to hold certain jobs which by the pros definition of feminism makes the status between men and women that of inequality, there can be no other ballot than for that of the pro.
Feminism equality has been achieved these are just women looking for handouts

In American women can work the same jobs as men. In the military they don't get certain jobs because physically they just don't stack up to men. Special forces requires the most physically fit me ln to join and when a women signs up if we slacken our requirements then that women who isn't strong or fast enough will inevitably get men killed. They get the same pay as well, the only time women aren't paid the same is when their work output doesn't match that of a mans. And yes women can chose how to lead their lives. Once they turn 18 same as men they can do whatever they want as long as they can live with the consequences.
Feminism equality has been achieved these are just women looking for handouts

Feminism: The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities http://www.merriam-webster.com...The pros round will flow as follows: - Women can work the same jobs as men.- Women can choose how to live their lives.- Women today are looking for handouts as feminism is already achieved. Women can work the same jobs as men http://usnews.nbcnews.com...http://www.navy.mil...(Question 10)Con claims that Women are allowed to do all the same jobs as men, pro will proceed to disprove this. In terms of the USA, one of the more progressive nations with feminism, women are still limited when it comes to the military. The pros two examples will be that of their inability to get assigned to full-time service aboard any type of military submarine and their inability to enter any of the special forces groups. The former due to claims of a lack of privacy and habitability without real explanations that empirically prove a woman is unable to serve aboard the vessels and the latter having the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanting them to get the go-ahead and yet women are still not allowed to join. Women can choose how to live their lives.http://www.washingtonpost.com...(For the purpose of this debate, my evidence is the synopsis of the video included rather than the video itself due to its pointless humor, feel free to watch it but I will base my test off of what is written around it.)The con failed to look at the poster child of female oppression, Saudi Arabia. 'each Saudi woman has a "male guardian," typically their father or brother or husband, who has the same sort of legal power over her that a parent has over a child. She needs his formal permission to travel, work, go to school or get medical treatment.'[sic]This statement elegantly summarizes the obvious, that feminism has not completed their goals. http://www.globalpost.com...This particular article talks about Saudi Arabia deciding to keep child marriage. The particular case in question was about wedding an 8 year old girl to a man in his late 40s. Women today are just looking for handouts This will effectively be the pro summary as the pro has more than fulfilled their burden of proof. As Feminism calls for equality and the pro has presented evidence proving that equality has not been achieved, the pro automatically wins so long as con fails to adequately counter this evidence.In addition, the pro reserves the right to clarify and provide definitions to defend their evidence and arguments.
Feminism equality has been achieved these are just women looking for handouts

Women can work the same jobs as men, they can make the same amount of money for the same jobs, they can also choose how to live their lives. The equality that the feminists of the 1960s where shooting for has been achieved. Any other women nowadays is just looking to live life without any of the hard work that is needed to be able to live life like any average person. They vote for abortion when a dad that doesn't stick around to raise his child is called a dead beat dad and looked at like the worst scum of the earth, at least he lets the child live. If a women kills her child before its born she's just pro choice.