BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We can all ignore Gender

(Gender: gender-less; preferred pronouns: Red Fox, Red Fox, Red Fox's (no pronouns). ) 0 === Defining Gender I don't know or care how the Gender Industry is defining terms today, But I know we're not reviewing the grammatical gender of the words "dog, " "house, " or "moon. " Also, Since Gender Fanatics seem to redefine everything every couple years, It is unreasonable to expect regular folk to keep up. 1 === A Hobby While everyone (presumably) has a gender, Most people don't spend much time thinking, Talking, Or inventing genders. Those who do are pursuing Gender as a hobby. No one is required to participate in this hobby, But I do expect polite and equal treatment of all. 2 === Colors No comparison is complete. I agree that "Gender is not color. " However, They have similarities relevant to this debate: --- They are both infinite in number, Because anyone can invent a new gender (as I did with "Neanderthal") --- They are not self-defining, Meaning there is no way to know what gender a person is even after they tell you the name of the gender --- They both can be made up of a small "basic" set, See next section 3 === Quarter (25 cents) The three sides (heads, Tails, And grooved edge) of USA quarters provide a good-enough understanding of gender. The overwhelming majority of people are either man or woman (or whatever they're called nowadays). These are represented by the heads and tails of the quarter. People who fall into one of the innumerable set of "other" genders are represented by grooves on the edge of the quarter. I am not an expert in the Gender Industry or the Gender Hobby, But a quick internet search confirms that the three sides of a quarter have sizes in line with the distribution of genders. Actually, The similarity would be much better if the quarter were much thinner. The number of people with "other" as a gender is much less than the quarter suggests. I have updated my preferred gender for Round 3 as an example of a workable method to be respectful without following the Gender Hobby. I recommend that we use a gender-less style to refer to that small portion of people who are not men or women. This respects their insisting that they are outside the "binary" norm, But also accounts for the fact that no one else cares. 4 === Conclusion A. Gender terms keep changing and growing exponentially. B. Most people don't have the time or inclination to follow all the changes. C. Overwhelmingly, People still fall into the categories of man and woman. D. The Gender Industry has provided a nonsensical set of genders. E. We can all ignore Gender.
We can all ignore Gender

C1: Word Definition: My opponent had given a definition of gender which I will quote: Gender: "Neanderthal"; preferred pronouns: dude, Master, Hero's. I must, However ask for a validate source for that. I have yet to find any sources that give me that kind of resolution. My opponent call me odd for English doesn't assign genders to nouns. If you are thinking that is true, That is plain wrong. A good answer to that is for you to search up gender on google. C2: Hobby I noticed one word my opponent loves to use: Hobby. I felt a need to emphasize upon this matter. My opponent clearly think that gender is something simply ignorable. In truth, I admit that there are often specialist and experts who emphasize upon the matter of gender, And it is normal for a person to ignore them. However, It is no reason for everyone to ignore gender issue, Which is what this debate is primarily about. My opponent provided an example on how Butterfly Classification is also based on combination of physical, Social, Psychological and also behavioral pattern. From my side, I must argue that Butterfly Classification is no match for talking about gender equality, Gender industry pay gaps and also gender ceilings. It is simply not the same. An issue that impacts society as a whole, Doesn't stand in a category that should be acknowledged as Hobby. C3: Gender is not color. Gender is a much more serious issue. It indicts not only color, But also other social issues such as wage gap between different individuals who are different gender. My opponents argues about how Morality/ethics and etiquette don't requires most of us to care about it. However, It simply is foolish to regard the entire concept as a hobby and can be ignored. Without knowledge of this, You will be simply the same as the prejudice people that we are looking at these days who pay female workers with less wage and less privilege. I will not go into the detail here, But I wish my opponent would provide a better argument than what he is giving me. Although I do admit that his view is indeed interesting.
We can all ignore Gender

(Gender: "Neanderthal"; preferred pronouns: dude, Master, Hero's. ) 0 === Thesis First, I agree that using the grammatical definition of gender would make this whole debate pointless. Second, Your choice of definitions is odd since English doesn't assign genders to nouns (unlike most romance languages). Third, Clearly this is NOT the definition of gender we are debating. 1 === A Hobby Lots of people think their hobbies are critical to life. This is also true for many Gender Fans. Butterfly classification is also based on a "combination of physical, Social, Psychological and also behavioral pattern, " but that doesn't mean I have to care. Gender is not part of my daily life. Outside of this debate, I did not refer to or hear about gender at all today (or most days of the year). The most common reason Gender ever comes up is because of Gender Fanatics insisting on its discussion. 2 === My argument #2 Gender today is like color. Let me explain. When I look around in the world, I see 10 basic colors (ROYGBV + BW & Gray + Brown). You may see more or less, And that's okay. While yes, Some paint companies name their "colors" mauve, Sunflower, Papyrus, And periwinkle, I see them for what they are: dark purple, Yellow, Light brown, And light purple. The list of names can theoretically go on forever. Key to this analogy is that the color "Mermaid" is not self-defining. I can't know what color it is without seeing it or being given its specifications (ie, "it is a medium shade of blue-green"). For non-fanatics, The explosion of genders is equivalent. The list of gender names and pronouns can theoretically go on forever and are not self-defining. For example, You CANNOT understand the gender I call "Neanderthal" unless I explain it to you. (It is a hyper-masculine heterosexual man who is incapable of dealing with modern genders or colors. ) For both colors and genders, Morality/ethics/etiquette don't require us to care. Everyone is free to look around themselves and choose how many "basic" genders they see. This is a personal choice that we don't have to justify to anyone (leastwise to Gender Fanatics). You may say this is a self-limiting position to take. But one of the hallmarks of our time is the freedom to be self-limiting. . . And even self-destructive.
We can all ignore Gender

Gender has become a more and more controversial issue in our lives. Before I start any of my argument, I would like to quote @Thoht's comment in another debate on gender which i have participated in. People are re-defining "gender. " We have redefined words in the past. In reality, All English words have been made up at one point in time or another. All of them have been redefined. Many of them have multiple definitions. There's no real reason to have two different words for biological sex. We can just say 'sex' and not 'gender' in all those cases. Having the second word for it is not inherently useful. Bisexual is a term for people who would have sex with their own sex or the opposite sex. Pansexual is the term most people will use if they'd have sex with any sex/gender. So people who call themselves bisexual may not have sex with other people that are of different genders or intersex et cetera. So most people accept their biological sex, But you can be male and still want to wear dresses, Play with dolls, Have long hair, Wear makeup, And tick every single "feminine" box outside of "sex=female. " It seems silly to call these people 'boys. ' I thank Thoht for having such a well point. Anyway, I will begin my argument on why we shall not ignore Gender. First of all, Gender, According to Merriam Webster Dictionary means: "A subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, Pronoun, Adjective, Or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, Social rank, Manner of existence, Or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms. " Thus, Making my opponent's argument pointless. Gender isn't a hobby, It is a combination of physical, Social, Psychological and also behavioral pattern. I wonder where my opponent classify this serious issue as a mere hobby. C2: Gender is one of the most important classification in society. Quoting my opponent, "The worst part is when fanatics try to convince us of something within the world of their hobby. Fanatics expect us to agree on the right way of thinking about some controversial call by a referee. Fanatics think they are better than us just for having the hobby. Fanatics can't imagine how anyone could live their life without being immersed in their thing. " I wonder where you have got evidence on this. In fact, Gender had become a concept that is a part of our daily lives. My opponent tries to argue that no personnel would talk about another's gender, However, That is simply not true. Every person, When meeting a stranger will automatically sort the person into a special pile, Which is how we got the concept of Gender. When you see a person with male physical traits, It is typical you assume him/her as male. That is Gender, And simply, It is not a hobby or ignorable issue in our current society.
We can all ignore Gender

(Gender: man; preferred pronouns: he, Him, His. ) Do you have a friend who's always going on about the NBA or NFL or baseball? I have a buddy who is really into accumulating points that turn into free hotel stays and airline flights. He brings it up a lot and wants all his friends to do it, Too. I've done it a little. My wife's friend's passion is Family History, And sometimes she says that she's literally 'a better person' because it is her pastime. Oh, And then there is this one lady at work whose wall is covered with papers detailing the minutiae of gender definitions, Politics, Disorders, Etc, Etc. 0 - Debate Thesis I am moral, Ethical, And polite while never acknowledging or caring about anyone's gender and completely ignoring the entire gender industry. 1 - My argument #1 Gender is a hobby. Like all hobbies, No one has to take it up, Or care about it at all. Occasionally, It is fun to hear about others' hobbies. Most times it is boring. Sometimes, It is pretentious. The worst part is when fanatics try to convince us of something within the world of their hobby. Fanatics expect us to agree on the right way of thinking about some controversial call by a referee. Fanatics think they are better than us just for having the hobby. Fanatics can't imagine how anyone could live their life without being immersed in their thing. The reality is that very few hobbies attract more than a minuscule fraction of the population. Gender is one of these. It is a hobby that most people don't follow, And no one needs to follow it.
pancakes(pro) v. waffles(con)

Was that even an argument? Waffles can be customized just as much. You ate waffles just the other day, and when is the last time you had pancakes? (His response when I asked: "half a month or so"). If waffles=Hitler, then you ate 4 Hitlers the other day. (The argument will be continued for one more round in the comments) (Pancakes=Satan).
pancakes(pro) v. waffles(con)

pancakes unlike waffles (frozen variants) are able to be customized and made to the consumers preferences, though this is not true for frozen variants of pancakes however. Also waffles may be higher in almost all vitamins and other nutrients however pancakes can be made out of the following materials potatoes, sweet potatoes, regular pancake batter, and pancakes batter which fruit chucks or fruit extracts.(Waffles=Hitler.)
pancakes(pro) v. waffles(con)

Waffles do generally have more fat, but that's for a good reason: waffles are more crispy, and fat is much easier to crisp without burning. If you want crispy pancakes, you need to either burn them, or use waffle batter. I would disprove your Hitler argument, but it simply doesn't make sense. I assume one of your future arguments will somehow include waffle irons, so I might as well address that now. You may consider waffle irons to be a waste of time and money, but there are a few things to argue against that. First, making waffles takes less time than making pancakes (Generally around 8 minutes). Also, the sheer awesomeness that emits from the waffles and the irons that they come from pays for the irons many times over.
pancakes(pro) v. waffles(con)

These Waffle House shootings are either from jealousy from the pure awesomeness that emits from waffles, or simply because Mosley did not order waffles, to which he immediately asked to be shot. To your "God" argument, UFOs generally do more harm than good. If a UFO gave waffles to Simonton, then I would've surely forfeited this round. Now that I've invalidated your argument, let's talk bout the actual difference between pancakes and waffles. "Traditionally, waffle batter is made with egg yolks and the whites are whipped separately and folded in just before cooking. This gives waffles a much airier texture than pancakes--the batter ends up being a foam... of course, you can always use pancake batter in a waffle iron, though Belgian waffles made that way are pretty bready." (thefreshloaf.com) This being said, "waffle batter can make for a decent pancake batter, but pancake batter does not necessarily make for a good waffle batter." (thefreshloaf.com) This means that the ingredients used in waffles are simply better than the ingredients used in pancakes. Checkmate.
pancakes(pro) v. waffles(con)

"Diner Adrian Mosley, 33, is dead after getting into an altercation with Waffle House cook Quintavius Martin, 25, in the wee hours of Friday morning. This is the second Atlanta-area Waffle House shooting this month."(gawker.com) this quote directly shows how the fans of waffles are follow and are over came be the evil surrounding waffles. Also Pancakes may be the real god send here from accounts from the ufo case in eagle river where occupants of this "space-ship" gave Joe Simonton pancakes shown in the quote,"Overview of the close encounter at Eagle River, in which Joe Simonton was given "pancakes" by the occupants of a UFO which landed outside his home."(ufoevidence.org). Your move.
pancakes(pro) v. waffles(con)

Of all the scrum-diddley-um-shious-ness that pancakes have (which, I agree, is quite a bit), waffles simply have more. This is because of the pockets that waffles have to hold in any toppings desired. These pockets can also negate your health argument, because it is much easier to hold fruit, such as strawberries or mangos, in a waffle rather than a pancake. Also, as a rebuttal to your "might hurt babies teeth" argument, this simply isn't true. This is because the waffle's crispiness can be varied without burning or undercooking the food, leading many to believe that waffles have god-like powers sent down from the heavens.
pancakes(pro) v. waffles(con)

Pancakes are rather scrum-diddley-um-shious because of the tasty, liquid gold it is made of. Also waffles are hard solid as a rock if i may (no legs at this point) might hurt babies teeth. and the teeth of your elders. Finally waffles have a higher average calories then pancakes, waffles being about 82 calories, and pancakes having about 63 calories. In conclusion pancakes are better than waffles.
Two is equal to the number one.

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.
This house believes in Utilitarianism over its rivals.

Hello, welcome to the debate.The debate is simply as the resolution stands. No squirreling of terminology to change the intended purpose of debate, the division of labour is mostly on myself (though my opponent should present a counterplan).The round structures should be as followed:R1 - Acceptance and any opening remarks.R2 - An explanation of your ethical system. There should not be serious engagement with the opposition's argument, though it can touch upon it.R3 - A riposte to the opposition's ethical system. R4 - Conclusion.A normative ethical system is defined as a system that regards how to behave in moral life, giving practical solutions to ethical dilemmas. A normative ethical system which does not, or cannot, tell us what is moral, or specifically aims to make all normative ethical systems equal, is not a normative ethical system. Only accept if you have:1) An ELO of over 35002) If you've posted in the comments, and I stated explicitly that you are a good debater to whom the ELO standard need not apply.If anyone breaks this rule, assume all 7 points goes to myself.Finally, the judging is which argument was presented more convincingly. If you are not convinced, fine, but if you were more convinced by my opponent's argument yet remain a utilitarian, you should vote for them, and vice versa.With that, I look forwards to seeing who will take part. I would also ask people to refrain from commenting on rebuttals to arguments in the comments section once the debate has begun until it has finished, as per common etiquette. Thank you, and I'll look forward to any debate.
Rawslian theory is a justified form of government.

Sorry for the long delay, I had a lot of personal issues. Anyway, this is the first round for Freeman's tournament and an anticipated debate between me and my opponent. It's also been awhile since Ive debated - hopefully it's an enjoyable experience. I've made it 4 rounds since my plan was that Round 1 would be moreso of an introduction, or further stipulations/modifications that may be added. Here I want to define Rawlsian theory, make some clarifications, and invite my opponent to the same. Any substantive argumentation will take place in Rounds 2-4. What I primarily want to discuss is Rawls theory of "justice as fairness" - namely his take on the social contract, and the discussion of his landmark book A Theory Of Justice(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Concepts such as veil of ignorance, original position, etc. are relevant. Furthermore, I am open to varying positions that can be named as neo-Rawls, in the sense that I am not bound by everything Rawls says in his book. It's been half a century, and most would not expect any philosophical theory to endure some refurnishing. As long as I retain the core tenets to be even recognizably called a Rawlsian, it should be permissible (for example, including gender in primary social goods was something Rawls was hesitant about initially). Lastly, justified can have a lax meaning. If it may be that Rawlsian theory is impractical but nonetheless a philosophically sound theory, I see this as being justified. Of course, if my opponent wants to show how a theory is unjustified if it's impractical, I invite him to (though perhaps this may fall into dome deep semantics, if my opponent has serious issues with this clause make it noticed). Let's get this debate going.
Rawslian theory is a justified form of government.

My argument center around Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’ and ‘original position.’ So, just to briefly recap what those are- The veil of ignorance means a veil that blocks me from knowing any properties about myself. I don’t know that I’m a white male who gets to grow up in America—I could be anyone. The original position just means the position where we’re behind the veil of ignorance. Rawls argues that if we didn’t know where we’d end up in society, it would be rational for us to choose a society with a government that enforces egalitarianism. And so this constitutes a social contract, justifying an egalitarian government. The first problem I have with this theory rests on an implicit assumption it makes about picking a society. Rawls doesn’t just say we can pick a form of governance (democracy), he also presumes we can decide what all the people in that society do (supports a large welfare state). But if we say ‘a democracy where people support these exact policies’, then why not say, ‘an anarcho-capitalist society not mine? If nothing, then at least some people can’t have been bound by the social contract, making it invalid, as social contracts are supposed to have universal support. Second, Rawls does not show that it is in anyone’s self-interest to support his government, or any government at all. This is only true if one is extremely risk-averse—if someone is much less risk averse, they may choose a monarchy on the off chance that they get to be king, or may choose something in between. Since no level of risk-aversion is objectively more rational than any other, it can’t be said that any particular state is in anyone’s rational self interest. Since no particular state is justified this way, hypothetical unanimous consent could never be reached, which would mean that no state is justified. And finally, another problem with the hypothetical is that showing that it is in someone’s rational self interest to sign a contract isn’t the same as that person actually signing a contract. If I could show that it was in someone’s rational self interest to marry me, would that make us wed (or rather, keeping with the veil of ignorance, if I could show that it was in the rational self interest of someone who knew nothing about herself or me to marry me)? Of course not. Only consent is consent. Nor would it be possible for any person to bridge the gap between that rational self interest and actual consent, as no people actually exist behind a “veil of ignorance.” Rawls himself admits that he “define[d] the original position so that we get the desired result,” socialism. [1] What Rawls’ imaginary zombie people would choose is irrelevant to what is right for the humans that actually exist. Rawls’ argument may be an interesting way of looking at the distribution of resources, but it isn’t a contract, it’s just some guy’s opinion. [1] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). 141.