BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Transgender people should use the bathroom that they are assigned on their birth certificate

First of all, allow me to apologise for the time it has taken me to respond. I'm sure you can accept that Christmas is a time where family comes first, and online debates second. I will address your first point first. You mention the expense and humility that a would-be exploiter of the law would have to go to in order to exploit transgender 'rights'. I think you confuse why I am of this opinion in the first place. My concern is not that of transgender individuals abusing the access to the toilet of their choice, like you said, they wouldn't throw that right away for nothing. I am concerned with cisgender people exploiting the law. You must note, that my definition of the term transgender never referred to the attire or appearance of the individual in any way. Who are you to say that if an individual is transgender, they should dress like one? No, by the definitions you have agreed to, an individual must merely decide that they are transgender, and they are so. Therefore, as there is no prerequisite to an individual deciding and therefore acting on the premise they are transgender, the separation of the two sexes in public toilets is meaningless, as anybody of any gender can simply announce ' I identify as male/female!', and enter in the toilet of their choice. And now onto the second point You mention how the transgender community is in the minority, and therefore there will be a small chance of finding them in a restroom. As I have said before, my issue is not in whether transgender people will exploit the law, but cisgender people using the access into whichever bathroom they want to exploit it. Third point. You mention that 'We just gotta learn to let people feel comfortable'. I agree! The problem is, you are putting the comfort of a minority above the comfort of a majority. To me that seems unfair. I think that comparing transgender rights to black rights is not a fair comparison. I understand your point, people are always unaccepting, and what is considered awful today was ok in the past. I believe that transgender people should have the same rights as everyone else. Yet I don't consider using public toilets a right. The reason I believe this is different to racial rights is that if a law passed letting transgender people use the bathroom they want, it puts everybody at risk of individuals who can bypass the system, claim to be transgender, yet do not believe it and are exploiting the law. Again, thank you for your patience in my long response time.
Transgender people should use the bathroom that they are assigned on their birth certificate

Oh boy, this is gonna be very cringy and very scary. So... the whole reason that this can't be exploited is that there are actually a few reasons. 1: Transgender people KNOW that if they try anything, they are going to get beat up by those they exploit and will be seriously fined for it. They wouldn't get this right just to throw it away, and if you want to be transgender just to exploit the law, that seems humiliating and really expensive, you would need to dress like a transgender for a specific gender, and then you would go into the bathroom and expect not to get pummeled by someone that will definitely take you down. 2: Trans-gender people have been around forever, they have used those restrooms no matter what, there is a low chance of finding this minority group you speak of in the first place too. As they are a minority there will be a small chance of finding them in a restroom. 3: If you don't feel comfortable, you'll have to deal with it. (Trying not to be rude sorry) But seriously though, if you think this is a problem, the trans-gender community knows, they know people will abuse this right and that things will happen. We just gotta learn to let people feel comfortable. Even if it may make us feel uncomfortable, just look at race minorities, they are everywhere now and my grandma wouldn't feel comfortable sitting next to a black child, same as if she was next to a transgender. We don't like different things in our life, they make us feel weird. We just need to learn to accept people.
Transgender people should use the bathroom that they are assigned on their birth certificate

Trangender people should have to use the public toilet / public changing room they were assigned at birth, i.e if a transgender woman went into the female public toilets, they are breaking the law. The reason for this is I feel if law like this was passed, it is easily exploitable, and that the overall populace's safety and comfort is more important than a minority's. If you agree to debate you must acknowledge these definitions: Trangender: An individual who identifies as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth Transsexual: An individual who undergoes medical procedure to change their sex i.e hormone therapy.
Euthanasia should be legalized

I agreed not to make arguments in this round, so I'm limiting myself to some summary and a couple clarifications. Clarification: I argued "assisted suicide" because of a misunderstanding. I thought Pro was arguing only for euthanasia, because the title doesn't say anything about "assisted suicide. " After I realized the mistake, I dropped "assisted suicide" entirely. I switched gears to arguing against it. There's ambiguity about what the resolution is -- is it solely about euthanasia or does it include assisted suicide? This was unclear so I dropped assisted suicide. For purposes of this debate, then, I argue against assisted suicide. All of my contentions apply both to euthanasia and assisted suicide. I want to clarify that my arguments are aimed at both, because Pro mistakenly thinks I support assisted suicide. Don't punish me for Pro's misunderstanding. Summary: Euthanasia gives doctors the right to kill terminally ill patients. I argued based on that fact that euthanasia undermines equality, corrupts doctors, deprives suicide of meaning, and leads down a slope to involuntary euthanasia. I gave two alternatives: the status quo, where things remain as they are now, with euthanasia illegal, and my other option that we make deadly drugs available. Pro's arguments are that euthanasia improves autonomy and saves money. I argued that this isn't true, and I argued that my proposal for deadly drugs does those things better -- autonomy and costs -- while not falling prey to any of the harms of euthanasia. Thanks for the debate.
Euthanasia should be legalized

I argue that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. As a Christian, I do believe that Euthanasia is wrong, but I still believe that it should be legal.Definitions: Euthanasia - The painless killing of a patient (at their request) suffering from an incurable and painful disease.Rules for this debate:1. No forfeits2. BoP shared3. No trolling or disrespect4. Con must start his or her opening argument in first round.5. To maintain the same number of rebuttals for both parties, Con must agree not to make any arguments in the final round.6. Pro will provide a closing statement in the final round and not present any new arguments.I look forward for an exciting debate.
The Watchmaker Anology is Proof for God

Let me point that my opponent seemed to simply past through the fine-points in my argument: the recursive nature of the structure of the universe is such that only a intelligence could design it - setting aside philosophical considerations of the reason behind such action. The consideration is in explaining the how, not the why. As my opponent is clearly aware the clockmaker argument is more than a mere explanation of a solar system; if I define rules by which a system can produce logical and strucured output - not considering the system in question -, does this diminuish my intelligence in anyway? does this negate my own existance? If the external observer has only my system, may it be complex or not, to contemplate how may she conclude my existance? My opponent offers then a fallacy nonsequitur through which attempts to conclude the debate when a mere corollary of my thesis suffices as an explanation. The hability to feel, or to behave accordingly is best explained through biology and neurology; however the fact that simple lifeforms, such as cells can coexist through well-defined mechanisms and form the existance of higher degree, and provide every conceivable human experience may not be mere consequence of Darwins' evolution, as my opponent implicitly defends. Where there exists a forest now, there was a desert somewhere on the past; how did the first tree spur into existance if not by design? In conclusion let me point out to my opponent that the my simples presentation of design examples does not require the shift of the debate.
The Watchmaker Anology is Proof for God

My opponent extends his argument beyond the confines of the Watchmaker Analogy. The philosophical argument of the REASON for the laws of physics is outside the realm of this debate. This is more akin to the Moral Law argument than the Watchmaker Analogy. My opponent has brushed past the classic argument of the eye and individual life forms to a sweeping concession of the point of the solar system. This concession concludes the debate. I would point out that there are less intelligent lifeforms that are proven to have grown in intelligence to the modern man. Trace back to the caveman, trace back to the apes. Interaction with cavemen and apes is less common today than in times past. So I take the example of the house cat and the domesticated dog. These are quite obviously intelligent, displaying emotion appropriate to the situation. Finding a watch in the desert is cause to wonder if there is a watchmaker. Finding a tree in the forest would cause one to assume a parent. This moves the debate to micro-evolution vs macro evolution, which is outside the scope of the debate.
The Watchmaker Anology is Proof for God

There must be an "Intelligence Designer". May all design spur of mere necessity? No We can argue that, for instance, whilst the structure of a solar system may be explained by the laws of physics that merely shifts the argument towards physics. Why are the laws of physics this way? Even discussing the metastructure of multiverse that allows for multiple universes - each one with a specific configuration of the laws physics - one must ultimately discuss that very own structure. Why are we conscious beings? Our conscience is but a consequence of the evolution of neurons, with dendrites that expand for meters? No. No mere physiological interaction may account for all human experiences, and reasoning; The conclusion is a simple syllogism of the proposition: we are capable of thinking because we suffer such intelligent design; intelligence may spur only from an intelligence source and this clearly leads to the conclusion of the existance of a higher, precedent, intelligence.
The Watchmaker Anology is Proof for God

From Wikipedia: 1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. 2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, anything complex) necessitates a designer. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent takes the position that the Watchmaker Analogy is proof for the existence of God. This debate is about the Watchmaker Analogy, other arguments for God will be considered in separate debates.
The Old Testament is not Outdated.

"God changed his mind because if he destroyed them, there would be no more Jews left! No one to eat Jew bread or Jewish cracker, or to worship Germanic gods, well god didn't like the last one, but how would the messiah come? Besides, this was all according to Moses, by no doubt god wanted to bring judgement, but this was not evil, it was that god couldn't destroy the Jews, he promised not to." I don't care, the fact remains that he changed his mind, which the rest of the bible says he doesn't, which is a contradiction. "Amos 7:3 God changed his mind, not for any other reason than a different circumstance, that is, if he had finished, the Jews would go extinct! So he didn't really change his mind per say, he changed his direction, as was planned from the beginning." Where does it say in the bible that he planned to change his mind from the beginning? "The bible does not once mention the trinity, this is a crack pot doctrine devised by catholic priests who were high on dope." Finally, a Christian who doesn't follow the absurd trinity doctrine! "Well first off, the bible never justified slavery, infact god smite Egypt for it, what the bible allows is indentured servitude, what this was was if you owed someone money, and you could not pay it back, you would work to pay, and you would have to work until either you payed off your debt, or until it was the year of Jew belly, then your debt was erased and you were free. Also, the master could not beat his servants or he would have to let he/she free! Exodus 21:26: Oh, ok, so I can own slaves as long as I don't beat them? I can starve them, humiliate them etc but as long as I don't give them a black eye, I'm good? "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake." "Also, stoning was just the death penalty, there is no issue there, as long as, you know, he's guilty." I know, but it's such a gruesome and painful way of killing somebody. The only time you would die from stoning is when someone eventually decides to smash in your skull with a big rock which is just...wrong... "And as to mass genocide, they had to! They were killing babies my friend, when you're at that point, you kind of have to be killed off. Stupid America! you know what happens to people that kill babies!"" But Jesus taught love and kindness! According to the bible, God didn't even give them a chance to repent before slaughtering them all! Especially considering the fact that they didn't even know better! On the other hand, he allows his own kings like Manasseh (who should have known better) hundreds of chances to repent and even restored his kingship! What's with the double standards? 2 Chronicles 33 Anyway, I think we're getting slightly off track here. These are my arguments as to why the bible is outdated: Your not allowed to wear clothing made of different types of material. Do you follow this law? No? Then it's outdated Leviticus 19:19 Do you eat fish? If you do, your violating this totally-not-outdated-law Leviticus 9:10 Etc Anyway, that'll do for now.
The Old Testament is not Outdated.

There is a trending notion that the Old Testament is outdated, this is obviously wrong, the god of the Old Testament is not a different god than that from the new testament, here is my case: Old Testament Verses: Malachi 3:6: "For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." God continually changes his mind on matters, and I'm pretty sure this is one of them. Here are a few examples of him changing his mind: Exodus 32:14 "So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Amos 7:3 "The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD." This are just a couple, but they are in direct contradiction to what you are saying. But I'm sure you can weasel your way out of it...somehow... Numbers 23:19: "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Same as above Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Same as above New Testament Verses: James 1:17: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with who is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Really? I guess that disproves the trinity then...because, you know, he doesn't vary... Anyway, same as above. Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Same as above 1st Corinthians 1:13: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" Paul was talking in regards to the divisions within the church, not Christ himself. Regardless, same as above. Furthermore, there are several versus in the Old Testament that support slavery[1], stoning[2], mass murder[3], genocide[4] etc etc etc., yet Jesus taught love and kindness... But hey! All praise the loving and kind non-changing mind God! Heil Hitler! I mean God! [1] Leviticus 15:44 [2] Deuteronomy 21:18 [3] Numbers 21: 2/ Deuteronmy 20:17 and 2:34 [4] Exodus 11 - 12
The Old Testament is not Outdated.

There is a trending notion that the Old Testament is outdated, this is obviously wrong, the god of the Old Testament is not a different god than that from the new testament, here is my case: Old Testament Verses: Malachi 3:6: "For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." Numbers 23:19: "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." New Testament Verses: James 1:17: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with who is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." 1st Corinthians 1:13: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
Parents should be allowed to access their children's social media

Depends how old the child is and how mature. You cannot generalize things and say that every parent should look at what there child does on the internet. I would say for some cases, where the child seems to have social issues and psychological problems then you might want to have a look. But remember, a young teenager want's his privacy to. It won't help a parents-child relationship if they constantly spy on what there child does on the internet. There is something that parents need to learn. That there child is getting older, more independent and at a certain point he/she must be responsible for what he writes or does on the internet. It's a dangerous world out there, so you might want to prepare your child and then let him go.
Parents should be allowed to access their children's social media

I believe that, for the safety of our children, Parents should have an account to access or see what their children have posted or received. Too many people are being cyber-bullied today and 4400 people a year commits suicide from cyber-bullying on average. allowing parents to access their childs social media will greatly decrease the deaths of children and teens. If you are a parent, you should understand. If you are a teen, guess what? So am I! I have been cyber-bullied and suffered from depression before. I was treated by a psychologist. PARENTS! PROTECT YOU CHILDREN! Dont be stupid and go against please!
Barack Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2009 for his "efforts to support international bodies and nuclear disarmament" (1). Yet, since taking his office, he has massively expanded the US-funded and directed drone bombings around the world, not only indifferently targeting civilians (2a) but also lying about this fact to the media and public (2b). And finally, one cannot forget the extreme veil of secrecy under which this campaign is being conducted, effectively shielding the executive branch from any sort of public or legal scrutiny (2c). He promised to and yet has failed to close Guantanamo Bay - indeed, he really wanted to just relocate it to within the USA (3). He signed the National Defence Authorization Act, a law which permits the US military to indefinitely detain any civilian (USA or not) around the world without a trial - something that is considered unconstitutional (4). My contention is that by continuing to hold onto the Nobel Peace Prize he makes a mockery of it. Debate rules: Round 1 should include rebuttals of my initial argument. ---- (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (2a) http://www.salon.com... (2b) http://www.salon.com... (2c) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (3) http://www.salon.com... (4) http://www.counterpunch.org...
Babies to Theybies: Let Children Decide Their Own Gender

If a child is uncapable of taking care of themselves, Why force an idea before they are able to comprehend it. Children don't fill paperwork or application so if a parent files a boy as a girl that is that parents doing. The child should not be acolded for what they believe of they have not yet really developed a belief system. Children have wild imaginations that we adults lack. Children ahould be able to believe whatevsd they want. Life teaches us hpw to judge ourselevs as time goes on.
Babies to Theybies: Let Children Decide Their Own Gender

The point is children are totally incapable of taking care of themselves especially when you consider the age parents allow their child to decide their own gender. They barely understand what"s going on and are just starting to become aware of the world around them. For the parents to keep their gender identity a secret for 4 years straight could be very confusing and overwhelming for the child. It is only a matter of time before your child enters society (even before starting in preschool) and realizes how confused they are because their parents decided not to give them some insight on what they are! Now we are talking about how we shouldn"t force gender roles on our children, Eh? It doesn"t make it any better to force upon them this non-binary stuff at an early age. What you could do is to create a welcoming environment (which you should do, Duh) and raise them according to their presumed gender. Give the child some time to grow and learn.
Babies to Theybies: Let Children Decide Their Own Gender

I dont see the connection between proper bathroom etiquette and being a judge of anothers ability to determine their idea of gender and or sexuality. To let a child choose their children is to let a child choose his favorite pair of shoes. He still has to wear what ever pair is apropriate for the ocassion but even though the fuzzy dinnosaur slippers are his favorite, He still can notnwear them to school. Anyone of any age should be able to choose their gender. What society accepts is a different argument. I can be a e year old boy in my head but if my vagina makes me a female to society then their is no need to make any further determinations. Everyones rights are protected. As well as everyones emotional and identity control.
Babies to Theybies: Let Children Decide Their Own Gender

I definitely do not agree with this at all. I mean, Are people seriously going to let children (who don't even know how to form proper sentences, Who just started walking, Who don't know how to feed themselves and wipe their own butts etc. ) make THAT kind of decision? And why would you change babies to theybies? The 'ba' is not even a pronoun!
America should go to war with Iran

America is already fighting terrorism on two fronts, in Iraq and in much over-looked Afganistan. We should not go to war with Iran because 1) we are already in 2 wars 2) We haven't finished even either one of those, even in the 7 years since the beginning. and 3) Iran is the size of Iraq and Afganistan together, and we can't control either 1, let alone 1 twice the size plus some.