BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hypothetical: if gender swap was possible, it shouldn't be legal.

Oops, well that's embarrassing. I'll have to check my terminology next time. For clarity, I mean to debate that if it was possible, it should not be allowed to physically change one's sex, which is indicated by having a penis or a vagina (or both). I'll go into more detail for Con. Like Con pointed out, anyone can identity with any gender they prefer. But this is not permanent; people may move from one gender to another over time. Therefore, if trans-gender individuals were given the privilege to change physical sex, then it should be allowed to everyone. Moving on to the issues I listed before. While yes, it is possible for a man to disguise himself as a woman and vice versa (this is known as "fishy drag"), imitation can only achieve so much, especially for those who have... obvious features that indicate their sex (facial hair, beer belly, large breasts, extreme pitches of voice, etc). Through changing one's sex, those features would no longer be a limitation, and would even make disguising a lot more effective. For integration, I mean the systems in society, including education, occupations, and the like. In all of these systems, it is mandatory to have the identification of an individual, including one's physical sex. Like Con explained, if physical sex change was possible, it is very likely the appearance of the individual would change, meaning that the original identification would no longer match. While legal documentation would solve this issue, this would essentially double the amount of identifying documents a single individual would have to deal with. This doesn't translate to the entire companies suddenly having to deal with "twice" the staff, but preventing overpay/underpay and other matters that would risk missing/doubling objectives would require an intense amount of resources and management. And... gender identification. This one is a rather unknown topic, as Con pointed out, but I do see misinterpretations that might occur. Trans-genders would probably flock at the opportunity, there isn't an argument here, but some groups might see this as another violation towards their beliefs. Strong-end feminists for example, could claim that physical sex change weakens the image of women, with the possibility that females may change their sex in order to be more convincing and influential. Anti-gay activists for another example, could claim that physical sex change is an act of defying God, this as it is rejection of what sex He (She, It, Them) gave them. Both groups could also claim that physical sex change may be forced by abusive parents who desire a child of the opposite sex, abusive friends who may dare or reject an individual into changing their sex, and abusive companies, authorities, and even strangers who are sexually interested. These all might in fact happen if physical sex change were possible. I apologize for the confusion Con, you may proceed with what's been restated.
Hypothetical: if gender swap was possible, it shouldn't be legal.

Thanks, Pro. Sex refers to a person's biological status. Sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, and internal and external genitalia distinguish one's biological sex. On the other hand, gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given society associates with a biological sex. People usually associate the two based on cultural norms within that group. Gender identity and expression describe how one identifies and expresses their gender, regardless of whether or not it is the one that is presumed of them based on how they look or their biological sex organs [1]. The default position to this resolution is necessarily Con. Because one can identify with and express any gender they choose, gender swapping is both already possible and legal. Perhaps my opponent refers to sex swapping and changing one's physical appearance to resemble the opposite biological sex. He claims that criminals may try to hide their identity by posing as the opposite sex, and thus gender swapping should be illegal. Let's pretend Pro does not confuse sex and gender and address the argument. First, one does not need a sex change in order to pose as the opposite sex. People can easily change the way they look by dressing a certain way, utilizing accessories, applying makeup or changing their hairstyle. Second, this concern could be addressed by requiring sex change operations to be legally documented the same way it is required that legal name changes are recorded. People can change the way they look entirely, including as the opposite sex, regardlesss of whether or not they have a sex change. I'm not sure what Pro means by there being trouble with having "both genders in educational systems." My opponent concludes by suggesting the option of gender (or sex) swapping might create heightened insecurity regarding one's gender. We have no reason to believe this is true. A person is either questioning or secure in their gender regardless of whether or not sex changes are legal. Moreover, common sense implies that it would be even more frustrating and limiting for someone to identify as the opposite sex, but not be able to fully express themselves in that way. Transexuals feel they live in the "wrong body" and are often uncomfortable with basic interaction and especially sex. Why should they be inhibited from the freedom to have liberty with their own body? I'll wait for Pro's response to expand on my rebuttal. Thanks and good luck. [1] http://www.apa.org...
Hypothetical: if gender swap was possible, it shouldn't be legal.

To avoid confusion, this is purely a hypothetical situation. The SCP foundation has an artifact known simply as SCP-113 (http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com...), and touching it causes a man to become a woman, as well as vice versa. If swapping genders was possible, safe, and readily available, should it be legal? For trans-genders, this would be the ultimate solution, and for others, a kinky way to experiment with sex... But this also involves more serious issues: criminals attempting to hide their identity through gender change; the integration of a person having both genders in educational systems; increased insecurities of gender identity itself; and so forth. The complications gender-swapping would completely overshadow the potential benefits.
Gun Control

Hello my name is, The-intelligent-speedy. I'd like for my opponent to consider the following.. 1.) Acceptance/Thesis 2.) Respond to objections 3.) Conclusion My opponent will compete to argue why gun control is not needed for example norestrictions in guns/ammo/etc... I will argue why gun control is needed. I believe there should be formidable gun control all over the United States due to school shootings, movie theater shootings, and home invasions. I believe every American citizen should feel no need of protection while roaming around the community. Citizens should not fear those with guns. Heavy guns, guns that belong on the battle field. I as well believe in strong background checks for those that feel the need to purchase a gun. The world has knowledge to the school shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, United States. Sometime before 9:30 a.m. on December 14,2012, Lanza assassinated his mother. Around 9:35 a.m. he used his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle(a rifle in which only belongs on the battle field.) He shot his way through the locked glass doors in front of the school, carrying high capacity magazines. 9:46 through 9:45 the shooting stopped after firing 50-100 rounds and reloaded only fifteen rounds from a thirty-round magazine. After the rampage, 20 children, 20 innocent children were found dead and as well as 7 adults. The killer was found dead as well, meaning this was caused for nothing. Now that the man is dead justice can't be served. And that angers me. The movie theater tragic: Gunman killed 12 in Colorado. In Miami a father was killed protecting his daughter from an home invasion. As we all suspect the criminals that killed the innocent people are mentally-ill. This is why I urge for strong background checks to all citizens that want to have possession of a gun in order to protect our citizens, our children of the future. I urge for reduction in ammo and weapons that belong only in the battle field and not in America's streets.
is evolution real? pretty simple question so don't ask me to clarify the meaning of life plz

I am debating for evolution, the debate will go as this format states:round 1: acceptance and a opening speachround 2: argumentsround 3: arguments 4: MORE arguments5: victory and final speachesI believe in evolution because i see the facts, i do not believe that there is no god, though i admit there may be a mistake incoming since we still know so little, and since time starting/ending is a constant illusion (Einsteine) so there may be no nothing before the start, and since space is infinite (off-topic now) ok done with that i can show many facts and even if it comes to that i can debate whether god has any proof even though i believe in him. I know as a fact that you can't believe in this or not, just because some told gallileo the world was flat doesn't mean it was (the church for christans in power actually did that anyway) this is a debate on the facts i do not want excuses aginst simple found things, and i do not want insults saying that nothing i say is true, i want an actual argument agaisnt it (hopefully the wesite about DEBATES can get me the first and hopefuly not final person that i can have a real argument with
The united states ought to join the ICC

First, I will address how my opponent attempts to defend his case, then move on to my own, and to my opponent's "voting issues." HIS VALUE "This was saying we SHOULDN'T PUNISH THE CRIMES not that we shouldn't look to humanity." This statement occurred when my opponent tried to defend his core value. I must implore again, why shouldn't we punish crimes? Sure, we have rights, but don't we need punishment when we commit crimes? Isn't that justice? His value here falls. HIS CRITERION His only defense of his criterion is to cross apply his arguments in defense of his criterion. He does not actually address what I have said, but only tries to reinforce it with his arguments. Since I have already taken out his entire argument, (Which I will do again shortly. If you already believe that I have taken out his arguments, you may disregard the following) he has no defense. His criterion here falls. HIS CONTENTION 1 He starts to defend this by saying that punishing people is immoral. WHAT? I have already addressed this: PUNISHMENT IS NECESSARY, IT IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE. He also defends this by saying that we cannot use people as a means to an end. I actually agree. He does not actually show why affirming uses people as the means. If you affirm, you actually UPHOLD his contention 1. It flows into the affirmative case. HIS CONTENTION 2 He, again, defends this by saying that punishment is immoral. I addressed this already. His contention 2 falls. So, his entire case has fallen, value and criterion included. I will now uphold my own case. MY CONTENTION 1 He tries to attack this by saying that affirming is immoral. He does NOT actually address anything that I said, simply that it is immoral. Warrant please? I have already said how punishment is just, and necessary. Contention 1: Upheld. MY CONTENTION 2 He only attacks this with his criterion. (Which has already fallen) Humans are not means to an end, yes, we get it now. He does not attack what I said, again. Contention 2: Upheld. He leaves several thoughts for the voters. He says that I dropped his case. If you would be so kind as to read my previous arguments in the previous rounds, you will see that this is not the case. He only does not want to adress my attacks. He also claims that I haven't touched his "RA". This, AGAIN, is not the case. I HAVE shown why affirming is moral. In the end of his argument, he says that you should vote for him because: (a) "my RA was untouched" and (b)"because humanity and the categorical imperative have been shown to be superior" I just addressed the "RA," and if you read my arguments, you would also find that I addressed his categorical imperative. So now, according to my opponent, you are left with no reasons to vote for him. So, I will tell you why the affirmative has won this debate. First, the affirmative's value and criterion have been upheld throughout the debate. Second, my opponent's arguments have been neutralized every time. Last, the affirmative provides for justice, human rights, and moral rightness. For all of these reasons, I stand in absolute affirmation of the resolution. Thank you.
Debating about Debates of Win vs Mac

I am really pissed because I accidentally deleted an argument that I had been working on for a while, but i'll argue this debate. First of all, my opponent has dropped all of his points. This means I win them by default. Second of all I would like to clarify that my argument was that while opinions matter in real life, when debating you must debate from a neutral standpoint. Since opinions are never neutral, they can't be used in debates. And while Macs are better than Windows at some things and vice-versa, the only way you can decide which things are more important (remember this is about which machine is overall better) is to use opinions, which I have already shown as impossible to use. Thirdly, my opponent has no more standing arguments. This means I win by default. And please!!!!!! VOTE BASED ON WHO HAD A BETTER LOGICAL ARGUMENT. NOT WHO YOU AGREE WITH.
Debating about Debates of Win vs Mac

"Opinions are like a#%holes, Everybody's got one." The problem with my opponent's statement is that you can't use opinions in an analytical essay unless the debate itself is about which machine people like better. The reason for this is that debates are based on facts. If opinions were allowed then someone could potentially win a debate due to popular feelings instead of the actual topic of the debate being true or not. This means that you can't use opinions. And my opponent's other argument can be declared null and void because the mac has a much easier interface than the mac. In addition, it's products are more cross-compatible than windows. http://www.teresi.us... This means that the only way you can prove either macs or windows are better is by using opinions (which I have already shown impossible to use.)
Debating about Debates of Win vs Mac

Of course you can argue about them, simply because you can just plain NOT use OPINIONS and use straight foward FACTS. For example, lets say that windows has better mouse.Ex: Windows mouse has right click, mac dont have that, either you have to hold the middle button for a few seconds or press ANOTHER key to just get right click. And yes, you can argue but not using just facts, just by asking other peoples opinions and facts, so you dont have to use just ur opponent vs you.
Debating about Debates of Win vs Mac

My opponent has said that it is possible to debate on whether or not macs or windows are better. The one problem with this is that the way he uses better it encompasses the entire computer system itself instead of saying that you can debate on which is better at video games, or word processing. My argument will be very simple, and I don't see how this debate will last for three rounds. Windows and Macs are better at different things. That means that in order to debate you would have to use opinions of what is more important; video games, word processing, or reliability and an easy to use interface. The problem with this is that opinions cannot be used in an analytical debate as only facts can be used, otherwise it will be the Press word against the con's word. If this were allowed than no leeway would be made and debates would never be concluded. So the only way that my opponent can defeat my argument is by proving that every aspect of a windows or mac is better than the other. I restate my argument. You cannot debate about macs and Windows because you would be using opinions. I await his response.
Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes.

This house agrees with the above statement because Girls should have the choice of what they can do. A Girl should never be forced into doing anything she wants (regardless of whether it is a sport or not) or a Boy none the less. I personally had problems with my fitness in primary school (Grades 2-4 I think - I'm British, I don't know. .. ) and while being forced into activities, it caused some long term damage, both mentally and physically. For example, my fitness during the American equivalent of Grade 2 (Year 1 UK) was at its lowest (not because I was obese, but because of my asthma). After being forced into a 1K run I collapsed after having an asthma attack, despite warning my teach that I would not be able to do it, rather than could not. I see your point, in that it might be more degrading for them if they are grouped with the 'pros', but what you prefer? Say you were mildly overweight, and quite unfit. Would you rather be in a race with people who aren't unfit or with those who are unfit? I can see the argument for both, and its fair to say only a poll would decide that. So on that note, please read through all of our points carefully and vote Pro! I would also like to extend my welcome to IwinYoulose333, and thank him for a hard thought debate.
Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes.

Thank you for the tip I assume you will summarize your arguments too. I believe that if boys and girls were separated by ability to perform instead of gender they would be more self-confident. I can see what you mean when you say it would be degrading, but how much more degrading is it to bunch everyone together? In my personal experience, those that are obese/out of shape do not want to participate in activities with these muscular, competitive kids that would mock and laugh at them should they even try. I think these special gym classes would solve the problem of girls doing less exercise than boys. Thank you so much for competing with me jp1999.
Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes.

Can I first ask, that do you not think that being put in a class with all the other obese or unfit Girls and Boys might be a little degrading for the children, and perhaps even worsen they self-confidence levels?You said shy people's fitness would be affected, and credit due, those who don't play enough sport will not get fit. But the sport you do should not be forced upon you. We live in a free country of choice, and children should have the right to make a choice whether to partake in a gym class or not, regardless of weight and confidence.But your last comment or point took me back a little. "be separated by their ability to perform not their gender." Like I said above, how degrading would that be? Put it this way, at the school I went to we were in set classes for PE (Gym class for you Americans). I was in the second of four sets, meaning I was about of average to above average ability. But, I was then, overweight and quite unfit. But because I had the choice to play different sports than other people, I generally achieved much higher grades than I would have done, following the normal, unchanged curriculum.I would just like to clarify the notion too. You say Girls should not have to do the same exercise and Boys, but both you arguments are against Girls dropping out of lessons (and Boys). Is it not worth clarifying here and now, that when you mean Girls doing less sport than Boys, you merely mean Girls and Boys doing less sport than normal? Because in effect, what we both are arguing about it why a child of either gender should be able to abstain from a Gym class.You may post a rebuttal against my points again, but I believe that the last round is typically a summary rather than a rebuttal. In that respect I ask you to abstain from debating, but to summarise your debate for the audience to vote.
Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes.

Thank you for your response. I noticed that I failed to site my source from my previous argument, but here it is: http://www.nextgenjournal.com... I can understand where you are coming from with your argument. Yes it is true that boys and girls differ in levels of competitiveness. However there are also boys who may feel weak and out of shape when seeing other more physically fit boys and girls. There are also girls and boys in gym classes that are obese and out of shape and give up on P.E., because the exercises that are done are to strenuous for them. A possible solution to this is to have different gym classes for different weights. It is possible with this solution to help both genders get in shape. I must also include your argument about shy children. These children are not necessarily obese, but may be not as fit as the others. Special classes for these people would also help. When you are surrounded by others that are the same weight as you, you are less likely to feel shy, because you know that the entire group will perform almost exactly the same. Although they react differently to tasks, if they are surround by members of their own weight they are more likely to be able to perform better and do the exercises. I guess what I am trying to say is that they should be separated by their ability to perform not their gender. Those members of different genders with the same ability to perform should do the same exercises.
Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes.

Hello, this is also my first debate. Thank you for allowing me to join you in this debate sir, if I may proceed.I agree that Girls should have the ability to opt out of certain activities in gym classes if they wish. A running gameGirls are very different to Boys (both mentally, and physically), and it is with this point I wish to say that Girls react and cope differently to Boys with different tasks set before them. Lets take a gym class, and there is a fitness exercise which involves a medium distance run (800m). There are fifteen Girls, and fifteen Boys, and not wishing to be stereotypical, but it is likely the Boys will all do it as they want to compete against each other, this is due to their natural instinct that they want to be the 'Alpha Male'. Girls on the other hand will stick together and help each other out, due to their friendly and more compassionate nature. It is fair to say that all of the Girls will do it because they have other people to boost their ego and help them on the run. But lets say one of these Girls are different to the others, she is very shy and in-confident in herself. She feels she cannot do it and wishes to abstain. What your argument suggests is that a Girl has exactly the same ability as a Boy, which is very true. The sky is the limit with any gender's ability. But it is the effort and attitude an individual must have, to reach that equal ability. My reasoning is therefore this; This one Girl has the opportunity to be as good as one of the Boys. But as she is less confident and naturally less competitive she will either do the run and feel she has nothing to loose, thus will avoid pushing herself to her maximum. Or abstain completely and enter a 'hopeless' stage.It is on this note that I wish to make my point. If a Girl feels she cannot do something because she is either too unfit (Injuries or medical condition) or too emotionally unfit (literally in tears, begging not to have to do the run) she should not be forced to do it.
Girls should be able to do less exercise than boys in gym classes.

Hello fellow debaters! I am quite new to Debate.org and this is my first debate. I am also quite new to debating and I see this site as a chance to improve my skill and have fun at the same time. Without further ado: I believe that girls and boys should be required in their Physical Education classes to do the same amount of exercise. There have been famous athletes in both genders. According to nextgenjournal.com the number of female athletes outnumbered males on the 2012 Olympic U.S. team. I believe this proves that girls can do just as well as boys in gym classes.