BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Transsexuals are stupid.

Contrary to his comments, transsexuals are not in disguise. They are really easy to spot. Imagine a normal day in a city, everything is black and white and all the people look exactly the same. Glasses, a sensible haircut, a smart suit, etc. Then a dancing buffoon comes along wearing a red dress, red high heels and an obviously fake blond wig. It also has facial hair and an 'Adam's apple' so you know that thing is a dude. That is how easy transsexuals are to spot. They are obviously not in disguise. (Now you don't even have to imagine it. I'm so kind) So, to the argument. All of these transsexual types blabber on about equality and accepting a person for who they are [1] [2] [3], so you'd think they would be all about equality and accepting people for who they are right? Wrong! You're an idiot, you wouldn't think of something as intellectual and sophisticated as that. So they're all about equality and accepting people for who they are, correct? No! If that were true, they'd still be all queer and weird, but they'd still have the same gender they were born with. Accept it, they've been through more sex changes than you've had hot dinners. What Con may try and do is one of those sneaky tricks where he rambles on about how I've not defined the terms and I therefore have proved nothing, so in an attempt to stop him cheating, I'm going to define these terms now:Stupid - Adjective to describe someone whose actions demonstrate their lack of knowledge, e. g: claiming that equality and accepting people for who they are are good things and then altering who you are. Transsexual - A person who has undergone a sex change operation. I think it's safe to say that I've proven that Transsexuals are stupid. I thank you. Sources[1] . http://www.youtube.com...;(the video)[2] . https://en-gb.facebook.com...[3] . http://humanisthappiness.blogspot.co.uk...
Transsexuals are stupid.

I was walking down the road the other day with my son, little Jimmy. Thinking about it, it wasn't the best idea. We got run over.I was walking along the street the next day with my poor little innocent son, little Timmy. But Timmy would not maintain his perfect personality for long, as we came across this bloke. Well, I say bloke. (s)He was wearing all this make-up and a feminine wig. Immediately when my poor little innocent son saw (s)him, he changed. He immediately developed the following symptoms:- Dying his hair all these queer colours- Dodging hair cuts- Shouting at normal people- Holding placards with messages such as 'Stop trans phobia now!", "Proud to be different!" and "SOCIETY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ME !!!"- Drawing rainbows on all personal possessions- Eating weird foods- Rambling on about stuff that noone else cares about- Frequently bragging about (s)his new tutu in an annoying fashionMy son was no longer little Timmy, he was now "People of all sizes are equal Rina" which is a really stupid thing to legally change your name to, in my opinion.All of this tragic stuff happened when he saw this travesty more widely known as a 'Transsexual'. So that's what I want to debate today, whether transsexuals are stupid. I hope for a good debate.I thank you.
Prostitution should be legalized

Making something legal doesn't necessarily make the matter safe. I'm sorry, but it's just not that simple. Sure, taxes may be cheaper but not by much. I promise you there will be plenty of drug addicts and rapists that will keep taxes high for you. Since most of the time prostitutes are women, legalizing it would force women in needs financially to go into prostitution. Therefore, women would eventually be inferior to men for they would be viewed as sex objects rather than human. There are more cons in prostitution than pros.
Prostitution should be legalized

But still, if you are truly careful about the people you have sex with and make sure they are tested the chances of AIDS are very low. Also, even though many would not become a prostitute some would. And we do not need to waste money by putting people who are not a danger in jail. I like to keep my taxes low and let people make their own choices in manners such as these. "It's all about the money, boys"
Prostitution should be legalized

"Test can be given to both the prostitute and the customer to check and see if they have any STDs." If you are infected with HIV, it usually takes from three weeks to two months for your immune system to produce HIV antibodies. During this "window period" you can test "negative" for HIV even if you are infected. (thebody.com) So, in other words, you can have HIV and the test will not be accurate due to the fact that you have no idea when you contract it. HIV also almost never appear as visual symptoms. On the rare occasion it is, it is not distinguishable from a regular cold. HIV tests are 99.9% effective. If prostitution is legalized, there would be more numbers of prostitutes, and that 1% would be a significant number. Here are all the time it approximately takes for other types of STDs to be detectable: http://std.about.com... "Also, prostitution could be run in an office building or lodge of some sort and eliminate the need for the women to work in dangerous places." You're right, the paying can be. But clients tend to want to take their prostitution home during the actual sexual intercourse. Harm can still be done there. "And, you said that this is degrading. Not every prostitute finds her job degrading." Please prove that to me. In my understanding, many women/men turn to prostitution during desperate needs about 90% of the time. "Also, plenty of people would gladly push aside their morals for the kind of money that high-end prostitutes make." Proof, please. Here is a quick poll I conducted. http://answers.yahoo.com... Not a totally reliable source, but it gives you an idea. Also, I didn't say that this was degrading. I stated that the society we live in today finds it degrading. You may not understand but sex, whether or not it is with someone we love or someone we love for their money, is strongly emotional for many people.
Prostitution should be legalized

If prostitution were legalized it could be run like a more conventional business. Test can be given to both the prostitute and the customer to check and see if they have any STDs. Also, prostitution could be run in an office building or lodge of some sort and eliminate the need for the women to work in dangerous places. And, you said that this is degrading. Not every prostitute finds her job degrading. Also, plenty of people would gladly push aside their morals for the kind of money that high-end prostitutes make. Who are we to tell people how to live their life morally on matters such as this?
Prostitution should be legalized

"The fact that it is illegal forces these women to work in a dark alleyway to avoid being caught by the police, while opening them up to violent attack." You are right. Making it illegal does indeed force women to take dangerous paths on their way to "work." However, dark alleys are not the only dangers in prostitution. First off, legal or not, in today's society devoting your body to give men/women sexual pleasure for the sole purpose of getting paid is thought to be degrading. Very few would be open about their lifestyle, and they will end up keeping it a secret. If the prostitute never tells anyone their exact whereabouts, who will find them if they are murdered or kidnapped? "The only thing that prostitution affects is the prostitute, and the person seeking sexual favors. Since it only affects those two why would it be illegal." It does not only affect "those two." Prostitutes realistically may have more than 2 sexual partners a week. Having more than 10 a week may even be the norm. During that time, prostitutes may contract HIV, or other sexually transmitted diseases from their clients. HIV can take from 5 months to 3 years to be detected. Do I even have to do the math for you? The people who have slept with the prostitutes may spread them around, because they do not know they have the disease, making it dangerous to the population. "It only waste money by putting people who aren't a danger to society in jail." As mentioned before, transmitting diseases that are not curable are a danger to the society. http://www.tigweb.org... The link I've provided lists dangers of child prostitution, but adults can also be highly affected.
Prostitution should be legalized

I believe that the occupation of prostitution should be legalized in America. The fact that it is illegal is what makes this whole business dangerous for the prostitutes. The fact that it is illegal forces these women to work in a dark alleyway to avoid being caught by the police, while opening them up to violent attack. The only thing that prostitution affects is the prostitute, and the person seeking sexual favors. Since it only affects those two why would it be illegal. It only waste money by putting people who aren't a danger to society in jail. And I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy the fact that money is being flushed down the toilet like this. Thoughts?
Obama

I as con will be arguing that Obama has done more harm than good as President. Pro will be arguing that he has done more good than harm. Harm as in a negative affect. Good as in a positive affect. Thus Con will be arguing that the negatives of Obama's presidency out weigh the positives. Pro will be arguing that the positives of Obama's presidency out weigh the negatives. Rules: (1) No improper conduct (something I am sure my opponent will obey knowing him.) (2) Both Con and Pro have the burden of proof. (3) This is about his presidency not his career as a politician. Both debaters can refer, bring up quotes, or actions etc... about his past. But they can't bring up good/bad things he has done in the past and use that as a way to support the negatives/positives. (4) The positives/negatives must be ones that were caused BY Obama. (5) 1st round: Acceptance. 2nd round: Present arguments. 3rd round: Refute your opponents arguments, and strengthen and add to your own. 4th round: Final arguments and refutations. I look forward to what I am sure will be an enjoyable debate!
GOD or SATAN

I State: ***Humans shall have the freedom to Love. ***Humans shall have no freedom to evil. I cannot go against the home, speak for the home, nor have authority over the home of my neighbors in which I do not own. I am not a Christian, you need to also reference all religion buddy. My sportsmanship touch": ***My purpose is to change while my pen writes I am teaching. ***Done is the finish; let me free my knife twice, I am.
GOD or SATAN

I choose Satan, for Satan only killed about 10 people in the entire Bible whereas the number of people God has killed is close to 2.5 million http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com... The 10 people Satan did kill though was all part of a bet that God had with Satan, so essentially, God allowed Satan to kill those 10 people http://rationalwiki.org... Satan is more caring then God, Hail Satan!
should cell phones be used in school

Ok then now let's see what you think. The phone was invented to communicate with a people, for example in and emergency situation you would use your cell phone or phone to call our parents. And also in most of the schools in the world most students have 3G or WiFi this is to search anything we can search on the internet for research. Phones also can be useful for last minute calls, for example when you have a last minute sport event or you need to stay after school to study you can call your parents or guardians with a phone. But the problem is adults or teachers see it as as we getting distracted but adults need to understand the a phone is used in many ways the see it has a way of entertainment to play game and social media, but that is not all true it is use for many things and for example again it is use to research and also take pictures of notes so we can remember them when we have a test or an exam. Phones are useful in many ways this is way I think that phones should be allowed in schools.
Water boarding is a just method of gaining information from terrorists

Seeing as both my opponent and myself bring up numerous points, I will only address the core of this debate in my final speech. Back to the basics! Essentially, to win this debate, one MUST PROVE why water boarding is either true, reasonable, just, and fair, or not. Whoever achieves this will win the debate. TRUTHFUL Water boarding is truthful. We tell the convicts ahead of time that they will either cooperate, or undergo the procedure. We are true to our word. If they comply, there is no need to even use water boarding. REASONABLE As stated, convicts are given a reasonable proposition: Give us the information, and you will not be hurt. If these convicts are really terrorists, (which according to this debate, THEY ARE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED) then they have the option to give the truth. This again upholds the truthfulness, as well as the reason behind water boarding. JUST Water boarding is just. It gives each his due. (Or, to be politically correct, her due) Look no further than Cromwell's freedom rights, Locke's inalienable rights, or the US Constitution. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. If your fist touches my nose, you lose your rights. Terrorists have obviously violated the rights of others, and therefore no longer retain their own. Since terrorists are due nothing, that is what they will JUSTLY recieve if they fail to comply. FAIR Water boarding is also fair. Again, giving each his/her due. If you break someone else's rights, you forfeit your own. THAT IS FAIR. Period. As I have proved, water boarding is truthful, reasonable, just, and fair. Because of this, I must affirm.
Public transportation should not be expanded

We believe public transport to be an essential public service, and as such, like health and education, should be paid for out of general taxation. People struggling to buy food or pay bills shouldn't have to worry about paying for their children to get to school or to get to work.After all we already pay for local transport through our Council Tax, in addition to various other taxes, including the fuel duty on petrol and diesel, but this money goes straight to private companies and shareholders to subsidise their profit margins, or alternatively is spent on other things such as pursuing wars overseas and bailing out private banks which have nothing at all to do with transport or the needs of ordinary people.
Public transportation should not be expanded

I think public transportation should not be expanded. The reason why is it can be economical. However, these days more and more people buys their own cars. Some of them are fast and uneconomical. But still, their are more economical cars than those fast cars. We own a BMW 535i, and we get like 25mpg poorly, and sometimes 31mpg if good. And think about the world with more and more public transportation. Sure, It can be more easy to go to places. However, the traffic can be also be really increased so there is no need to public transportation to be increased.
morality is not absolute

First off I am willing to agree with my opponent's request for this debate we can assume that morality exists in some form. Furthermore as pro I will be focusing mostly on refuting my opponents arguments because as noted if he is able to show even 1 example of absolute morality he wins. Also as a brief outline I will be approaching this resolution from several different ethical perspectives in order to provide the most effective case Lastly I would like to point out as stated in the resolution we are talking about specific actions such as slavery, murder , rape ect. not broad philoshpies such as Utilitarianism as I will point out in my case. contention 1) Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a very simple concept whatever action provides the greatest benefit to society as a whole should be pursued regardless of the actions required to achieve those benefits. For example if murding infants was required in order to prevent the depletion of resources, mass famine and overpopulation then we could consider it ethicaly pemisable to kill infants. This means that regardless of how morally right or wrong an action may seem in a certain context there will always be another scenario in which the action will have the opposite moral value. Thus since no action will always be morally beneficial or detrimental to society in every context morality cannot be absolute. contention 2) pragmatic ethics Pragmatic ethics focuses on the idea the society are constantly evolving or progressing. It holds that since society's are in a constant evolutionary state one cannot judge the actions of one society based on current societal values. It is actually quite similar to biological evolution in a sense, just like we are incapable of judging the actions of a chimp because we only understand human interaction we are incapable of judging the actions of say 18th century America as they had a different societal outlook or a different moral compass. Therefore since morals are capable of constantly evolving they cannot be absolute. contention 3) self preservation Self preservation is rather straightforward, any action taken in order to preserve one's own being is justifiable regardless of how it may be looked upon under a different context. For example if one is required to cannibalize another human being in order to prevent starvation that action is morally permissible since it preserves one's own being. Therefore since any action that may be looked down upon is acceptable in order to preserve one's selfmorality cannot be absolute.
Poor people are most likely to get hair lice

Since they began their argument in their Round 1 post, I will begin my rebuttal. All evidence my opponent has shared was purely anecdotal, and they even go so far as to say "And although [the fact that lice love clean hair is] probably true, I think it's bull. .. " They are disregarding what they believe to be a true statement simply because it doesn't SOUND true to them. Evidence would support the contrary. According to research from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "Getting head lice is not related to cleanliness of the person or his or her environment. " [1] i. e. someone's socioeconomic status has little effect on their likeliness to get lice. It is true that head lice prefer clean hair, because, as another source points out, "Lice thrive on clean hair. When hair is clean there are no oils, dirt, dandruff, and debris in the hair so the lice have an easier time feeding and laying their eggs on the hair. Dirty hair makes it difficult for lice to eat, since lice eat blood by biting on the scalp. " [2] Source(s): [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... [2] . http://nit-wits.com...
Poor people are most likely to get hair lice

I hate when you google "hair lice" and a bunch of articles come up saying how hair lice love clean hair so you shouldn't feel embarrassed that you have hair lice, because they love clean hair. And although it's probably true, I think it's bull because only ghetto/poor people have it. I'm just being honest. I have never seen a school with rich kids who have hair lice, it's usually in the ghetto or dirty people.
Charles Darwin was a jedi

In my role as Con I will disprove these claims. [1] - Charles Darwin as a Jedi. Pro fails to describe what type of Jedi Charles Darwin supposedly is, 1 of 7 possible titles should be awarded to Charles Darwin by Pro in order to re-enforce Pro's stance that C. D. was a Jedi. Jedis exist within the Star Wars media franchise, not within the actual physical reality we occupy: moreover Pro's resolution does not specify that C. D. was present in the time period known as 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. .. .' - only that we know C. D. was born in 1809, February 12th Pro will have to prove that C. D. came into contact with a known Jedi or has some form of document/certificate from the Jedi Temple, located on the Ecumenopolis Coruscant planet in the fictitious Star Wars Universe corroborating his state of being as a Jedi. [2] Charles Darwin ate potato chips. I will concede that C. D. had a 29 year window in which to eat potato chips. C. D. died in 1882 and as per - . http://www.snopes.com... - the potato chip was invented in 1853. Pro has to produce proof that C. D. has eaten potato chips and that this is recorded somewhere from a factual source and not the Jedi Archive as this building does not exist and has never existed. [3] Charles Darwin created the moon as we see it today. Pro will no doubt liken the moon as it is today, to be the product of C. D's Jedi powers (Yet to be proved by Scientific fact and Biological analysis by Pro) - as per the following link Pro is making the indirect claim that C. D. has/had the potential to travel through time. . http://www.universetoday.com... . http://www.stonybrook.edu... as listed on the above sites, the moon was formed 4 - 4.53 billion years ago, this causes a contradiction between the year in which C. D. was born (and died) and the Moons creation. Facts pertaining to the Moons actual image can not be confirmed to be different from as we see the moon today as photographic technology does not span the 4 - 4.53 billion years in which the moon has been present.
Digital Books

Well as my most intelligent contender said that 'Digital Books are going to save forests but also encourage people to read and write, one of humans greatest capability. '; well these facts are not true and I am going to prove why. Let me start with the most basic one. .. the fun that we have in flipping through the soft crisp pages of new books, its smell and the excitement in getting one, these are all being destroyed by these e-books. Can you keep e-books on your tummy and flip pages. .. its just quick reading and a total no no for bookworms like me. You cannot obviously stack e-books in cupboards and when you are depressed, take one out and read? ! Second point, well it can't encourage people to read, because even before the reader comes to the most interesting part, his eyes will start aching, we can't read e-books for a long time. 5 or 6 pages at a time and that's all, in these cases the reader often tends to loose interest, then what's the use of reading it? Coming back to ground zero. .. e-books do no good, but destroys are eyes step by step and the reader being pretty unaware of the dangers. Third "Second, e-books are more environmentally safe. ", how? My contender says that they save forest, read on. More e-books means more wastage of electrical power, leading to more generation of thermal and other power stations , more loss of electricity as per the relation V*I*t*t, more construction of transmission poles, leading to the depletion of forests and wildlife. Well, I hope this has encouraged our worthy opponent to think on my lines.