BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel is not a Jewish State it is a Khazar state (Khazars- Anti semitic Jews)

My opponent failed to site his sources on these claims. They come from a single study from Eran Elhaik who is at odds with the rest of the scientific community. He finds that 38% of Ashkenazi Jew genes are from the Khazar Kingdom (1). They make up 47% of Israel's Jewish population. So even according to his own source only a fraction of them is Khazar. However his theory is flawed in many ways. The problem is that there are no known Khazars today so the Jew's DNA was compared to Armenians, Georgians, and Caucasians. Some people think that these people might have some Khazar DNA in them but there is no evidence (1). These people also have middle eastern genes which not surprisingly is in the same family as the Jewish lineage. There are also contesting research such has this research by a large group of scientists driven by Dr. Sands showing that there is no evidence of a Khazar connection (3). This Khazar research completely ignores previous research showing a Middle Eastern connection. Molecular research has found that Jews are genetically homogeneous. Research has found that geographically distant Jews are more similar to each other than to any of the non-Jews they are living around. They do have a shared middle eastern genetic ancestry. Other scientists have called Elhaik's theory an outlier minority view that is not supported scientifically with weak arguments (4). A paper published in 2000 shows that Jews around the world share Y-DNA haplotypes that are found among many Arabs in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Only a small percent of their Y-DNA come from outside the middle east. All Jews can be connected on the order of fourth to fifth cousins (5). Peer review of Elhaik's work has found it sloppy and politically motivated and has gained no real acceptance in the scientific community. While Palestinians do share similarities with Jewish genes this is because they are genetic cousins and does not mean that they are Jews too (5). 1: http://www.jewishpress.com... 2: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu... 4: http://forward.com... 5: http://www.forbes.com...
Israel is not a Jewish State it is a Khazar state (Khazars- Anti semitic Jews)

A Genetic study of so called Ashkenazi Jews who claim to be semitic jews has proved that the origins of Ashkenazi jews don't belong to the Holy state of Israel but they belong to the Khazar Kingdom of the 7th century situated north of the caucasus mountains. Khazars are from the bloodline of Japheth the third son of Noah where as they are no where near to the bloodline of Prophet Abraham (pbuh). The semitic jews know this thats why most of them oppose the current occupation of Israel by these fake Khazar Jews. Genetics of Palestinians have shown that they have majority of their people originating from Semitic bloodline. Arthur Koestler a jews wrote a book on Khazars in 1971. Its a must read. According to the Quran and the hadiths all the fingers are pointing towards Khazars being the Gog and Magog people who control the world of today and those who follows their system and their lifestyle are becoming the part of Gog and Magog society which is destined for hell. This is my Argument!!
Male Privilege isn't real

I think you may be right, However I disagree with your logic. There are some men that say that their chests are sexual, Including my own brother. By your arguments, It should therefore be illegal for men to take their shirts off in public, Unless they are wearing a bra. Clearly, Male Privilege exists. This has been shown by irrefutable evidence. All you have done is shown that women don't like to show their chests.
Male Privilege isn't real

Well starting this out, Your biology statistics are true, But if you do enough research being even shirtless as a male can be condemned in places. And as you didn't read earlier, Women in most of the society has characterized their chest as a sexual thing, We have a term for molesting, Which correlates, Free body measures happen in some places also, But as a women's chest has been classified as something they necessarily do not want to show, This is also the case with why we make certain clothing items for this case so women don't feel uncomfortable when they do something the sort of this, 95% of women do not want to show their breast out in public statistically, And if they wanted to they have options such as sport bras or etc. Which gives them an underline that there is no privilege because women's society has classified breast as aa sexual, Or more private thing as their body, And as sexual, It is considered nude, Just as if a man is shirtless, He is exposing nudity, And it can be illegal for men in parts of America. Still no correlation to privilege.
Male Privilege isn't real

I don't think this is a fair argument because males also have estrogen. Given a male has enough estrogen, Or other things such as soy products, They can also grow equally-sized breasts. Furthermore, According to Healthline. Com (Certified with the HonCode), Men can lactate and are born with the same tissue and milk ducts as women. This shows that female breasts are no different than male breasts, Meaning the fact that men can show them is Male Privilege. They are the same thing, And one of two things should happen. A) Nobody should be allowed to show their breasts in public. B) Women should be able to as well.
Male Privilege isn't real

I can see where you are getting with this, But this doesn't classify as privilege. Simply because women primarily stated that their chest is a "Nude" characteristic, Which it is defined by biological terms and modern terms, A women doesn't want to have her chest grabbed, But if it happens to a man it doesn't matter, It cooperates with a correspondent of sexual measures, Which therefore doesn't present factual evidence that just because a women can't expose her chest because it is labelled In a sexual term isn't a correspondent if privilege for men.
Male Privilege isn't real

At first, I agreed with you, And then did some research. I've come up with one solid reason that completely proves that Male Privilege is a real thing, Even in the United States. Imagine that there is a man and a woman running along side each other through a city in the United States. It is a hot day in July. Finally, The male takes his shirt off, Exposing is bare chest. The female then does this too. This is illegal for the woman, But not the man. If you can honestly say that this is not Male Privilege, Then I would expect to hear a very good rebuttal.
Humans are the new T-Rex

Okay, so my opponent makes a number of assumptions about my case. Firstly, it is not only Muslims, Christians and vegetarians. It is the Muslims, Christians, vegetarians, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Pacifists. Also, you are also assuming that the people that do not meet this criteria will want to eat everything including humans themselves. In regards to the reunning out of our fossil fuels. The solution is simple. In fact there are many viable solutions to our current situation. "Wind energy or wind power is extracted from air flow using wind turbines or sails to produce mechanical or electrical energy. Windmills are used for their mechanicalpower, windpumps for water pumping, and sails to propel ships. " . https://en.wikipedia.org... "Solar power is the conversion of sunlight intoelectricity, either directly using photovoltaics (PV), or indirectly using concentrated solar power (CSP). Concentrated solar powersystems use lenses or mirrors and tracking systems to focus a large area of sunlight into a small beam. " . https://en.wikipedia.org...; "Wave power is the transport of energy by ocean surface waves, and the capture of that energy to do useful work – for example, electricity generation, water desalination, or the pumping of water (into reservoirs). A machine able to exploit wave power is generally known as a wave energy converter (WEC). " . https://en.wikipedia.org...These are just some of the ways that we can overcome the problems of the lack of fossil fuels. It still bewildering how my opponent's argument even fits in with the resolution. Due to the lack of fossil fuels we may have difficulties to overcome however this does not effect food in any direct way. My opponent will have to explain for this argument to have any credibility on its own. I still fail to understand how people will starve to death if they do not eat meat. There are currently 400 million vegetarians in India alone as stated in my contentions. This statistic could possibly be higher and some sources suggest that there are 500 million vegetarians in India alone and they are surving and living without having to become cannibals and abandon their beliefs in regards to meat. . http://www.vegetarians.co.nz...; The movie, Lord of The Flies is a fictional story that is not real. It is a movie and a book and should not be considered to be anything more than this. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;It is part of my opponent's burden to show me why the nature of animals is in our DNA, without sources or evidence to support this claim, it is mitigtated to a mere assertion.
Humans are the new T-Rex

My opponent has assumed that the world will be saved by Christians, Muslims and vegetarians because these people have a policy of non-violence and pacifism. I contend that when the oil, fertilizer and coal runs out, that agriculture will no longer be possible. Thus, both religious pacifists and vegetarians will all starve to death or be cannibalized by those people who are not vegetarian. Humans are still animals and will act like animals when they are hungry enough. Civilization as we know it, is only possible when there is a plentiful supply of food. Once the supply of food is cut off, humans will turn into horrible beasts and stalk one-another until there are no humans left on planet Earth. The study of metamorphism has nothing to do with this topic. I am not proposing that humans will physically turn into dinosaurs or any other beast. The beast or animal nature of humans is inherent to our DNA and will be released when no other options are available. The movie -' Lord of the Flies' is a demonstration of how humans will act when the food supply runs short. http://www.youtube.com...
Toasters are superior to Toaster Ovens

My opponent clear does comprehend the concept of the toaster oven. In the title he claims to be against "toaster ovens" but in his argument he makes claims clearly aimed at full sized ovens. I will be arguing for the toaster oven and not the full sized oven. For my opponent I will provide the dictionary.com definition of the toaster oven: Toaster Oven: an electrical appliance designed like a small oven, used for toasting bread and for broiling or baking small quantities of various other foods. Here I have linked a visual if there is any lingering confusion: https://www.casa.com... First of all, my opponent claims toasters are superior for their mobility and their ability to better cook smaller items. Although toasters are generally slightly smaller, they must have a large area above for access into the device, where as the toaster oven has an easy access door that allows for side entry into the machine and doubles as a way to better conserve heat.
Toasters are superior to Toaster Ovens

Toasters are clearly superior to toaster ovens. I mean first of all they are mobile machines of morning madness! You can bring a toaster in your car in your workplace on a plane, or even in the bathtub (not recommended)! You can toast any breaded product such as the American classics like Eggo waffles, pop tarts, cinnamon toast, etc. just about anywhere. Try putting a waffle in a toaster oven. It will be a hot mess and it will be a very unsatisfactory waffle. A pop tart in an oven? FORGET ABOUT IT!! And even if this debauchery of breakfast items could exist, can you do it on the go? Can you bring your giant toaster oven to your workplace and plug it in in an instant and oven your Pop Tart? No. Toaster ovens are only good for stationary casserole making and in every way are inferior to the ever classy toaster.
Toasters are superior to Toaster Ovens

I respectfully apologize for the appliance related confusion. However, you provided little, if any, ample evidence that the toaster oven is superior to the toaster. My points, while in smaller gradients, still stand. The toaster is more compact is more timely. "The Kitchn" posted a "Toaster vs Toaster Oven" article, similar to our debate, and a memoir by the author says "It wasn't until we moved away to college that we realized a toaster was such a great appliance to have. It's quick and effective, not to mention small and compact. It's not back breaking to take the toaster out of the cabinet and replace when finished." {1}. This exemplifies everything I stand for. The speed of the toaster is clearly mentioned, suggesting its superior toasting speed over the toaster oven. Additionally, its small size and weight is mentioned; showing how little of a hassle toasters are for the convenience they offer. I am going to bring to attention one of the most popular uses for the toaster oven, roasting a chicken. This act, if done with the average toaster oven, should take about 35 minutes {2}. However, for most people, driving to a grocery store and buying said chicken is less time consuming and can often be easier than taking the time to buy and then cook a chicken. Logically, if you are going to the store to buy a chicken, then season it and cook it yourself; why not just buy one someone else made? If people used this logic the toaster oven would be rendered obsolete in this instance. However, the speed of the toaster exemplifies its versatility. To toast a pop tart or eggo waffle takes 2 minutes. Much longer than it would take to go to, perhaps iHop, and have a waffle made. Thus, the toaster teems with convenient properties. In fact, mathematically, one could toast 10 pop tarts, waffles, or pieces of bread in the same time one could cook a chicken: one piece of food, in a toaster oven. Thus providing sufficient food in a much more timely fashion. And, to reiterate, has no quicker alternatives, unlike the toaster oven. Therefore, for the modern American, the toaster is more convenient and overall superior to the toaster oven. 1) http://www.thekitchn.com... 2) https://www.quora.com...
Those Convicted of Serious Offences should be used for Medicine

Well, a genuine surprise and disappointment at the forfeit but this seems to be happening to most of my debates lately. Cerebral has been online in the last day so I don't know why he hasn't posted. Since I can't vote and this debate won't show up on the front page due to the forfeit, I would really appreciate it if anyone reading this could take the time to vote for whoever they think had better arguments, sources etc. Thanks. Con.
Those Convicted of Serious Offences should be used for Medicine

It is my position that those convicted of the most serious offences, for example murder, have forfeited their human rights and deserve execution. Furthermore that the best method of execution is to utilise them for medical experimentation and/or organ donorship. My initial argument rests on these points, 1: Rights carry obligations. By committing such heinous offences the criminal should forfeit all rights. 2: Crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism are such terrible crimes that the criminal is unlikely ever to be 'rehabilitated' and should never be freed to endanger society. 3: Permanent incarceration is a drain on the resources of the State and it is amoral to expect the taxpayer to support such people. Whilst imprisoned there is always the chance that the prisoner may harm prison staff or escape back into society. 4: Simple execution fails to give anything back to society. 5: Medical testing on animals raises ethical concerns, people are more concerned with the well being of an average rabbit than they are of a rapist. 6: Medical testing on animals is of limited scientific value. 7: The testing of new drugs or procedures on patients or paid volunteers is unethical, why should normal members of society be used as guinea pigs when we have a surplus of unproductive and worthless criminals?
Antoine D'coolette is a good role model

While this might be difficult, I can assure you that he is a very bad role model in different ways than expected. For those of you who don't know him, here he is: http://archiesonic.wikia.com... Here's my reasons: Hiding feelings: early on, when he was still a wimp, he tried to hide this and replace it with a swaggering bravado. That's terrible to teach children, that they should hide there feelings inside them and try to be someone your not! Bullied: also early on, he let himself get constantly pushed around by Sonic and the rest of the Freedom Fighters. Also a bad life lesson. I wouldn't teach my children to let themselves bee bullied and not do anything about it. Handling dangerous weapons: as you know, the comics started when Sonic was about 13. Antione is about the same age. As you can see in the link, he has a sword. That would mean that he was handling a highly dangerous weapon at the beginning of his tween years! And he barely knew how to use it back then!!! Embarrassed: I learned that when he was young, Antione was involved in a lab accident that made him bald. He went around for a while wearing a toupee! Who cares if your bald, if you get caught with the fact that you wear a toupee, it would be a lot more embarrassing then if you came clean about being bald earlier on! Although, i do give him credit for eventually growing in hair... That looks exactly like his old toupee! That takes talent! Those are my reasons, I hope I have proved my point enough so that you vote con! Thanks.
Antoine D'coolette is a good role model

First let me introduce him Antoine D'coolette is a brown coyote that wears a blue shirt with epulettes worn by the royal guards of the Kingdom of Acorn. He served as a member of the freedom fighters for a very long time until he was put into a coma by metal sonic blowing up. He is currently in this coma today. Here's how I think he's a good role model: Courage: when he first joined the freedom fighters he was a laughing stock. He was a coward and flubbed English and his native language( which his mother taught him before she died of illness). But soon he unlocked his true self with the help of his friend and future wife, Bunny Rabbot. He became very courageous and even took on the evil metal sonic. Friends: Antoine helped and even protected his friends. Once when the mischievous Geoffry St. John was about to kill Sonic, Antoine came out of nowhere and punched him clean out! Beliefs: Antoine fought for and even sacrificed himself for his beliefs.(he grabbed metal sonic and pulled him back before he could detonate on the vehicle carrying king Elias Acorn, but was severely injured by the following explosion.) I hope you can see that he should be rewarded on what he did for his friends and his kingdom, just try to disprove this!
people will die otherwse - all states should have opted into the medicaid expansion

seventeen thousand is well established. here is another article with reference to a harvard study http://www.dailykos.com...# it was well established before obamacare that about forty thousand people died yearly due to no healthcare. about half of states opted into insurance, that means about half will live. the math makes sense. even that article that con said was against government health care, was actually just against canadian care. here is the same article talking about the greatness of other government run health care countries "But the worst part is that things don't have to be this way. While Canadians are getting a raw deal for their health care dollars, patients in Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland receive universal access to health care without lengthy queues. Patients in Australia, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and France enjoy better outcomes from the health care process than Canadians from their universal access health care systems. And vitally, payers in these countries all face a smaller bill for health care than Canadians." i can find articles that say the french system, for example, is better than the USA in terms of wait lines and reduced expesnse and anxiety. it's an article by a libertarian, even. con didn't respond to the well known fact.... the USA spends eighteen percent GDP on health care, while most industrialized countries spend ten. look it up. i behoove you to. insurance compaies are a middle man who serveds no purpose but to charge profit and adminstrative costs. i could go on and on but all con has to do is read my initial post. con is simply under the folk lore that anything the government does is going to be worse than anything else. in healthcare, this is proven not to be true.
people will die otherwse - all states should have opted into the medicaid expansion

PRO Failure to Use Factual Information, Various Mistakes _______________________________________ First off, PRO states that "17,000 people will die because they opted out of the expansion. " This statement is utterly and completely false. I researched the PRO sites listed and found that the "17K will die" is in the comments section, written by someone not employed by the Health Affairs Blog, making that information unreliable. The second link appeared with a poster from tumblr. com. Surely, a social media site is in no way reliable and is completely untrue. These statements show poor research by my opponent. I'm asking that he come up with a more specific and factual link to his research or I should ought to receive the citing point. Also, I would like to point out that my opponent stated that I had made various statements. Here's an example: "so states would be according to con, quibbling about losing a little more money, but while at hte same time getting a ton more money in return to their state. getting that large of influx of cash to your state, for such a small obligation yourself, is a no brainer in terms of stimulating your economy, at least from the perspective of the states. " Note that this is my first constructive of the night and had not inputted any of that information. Please also notice occasional grammar mistakes and difficulty of understanding what he is trying to put forward. Rebuttal _______________________________________ Since I already proved that the "17K will die if medicaid is not expanded" figure is not factual, I'll skip right to the PRO's point of stating that government run healthcare is known to be more effective. First off. .. where did that information come from? Any source? Second, government run healthcare is socialism in a nutshell. I'll prove that government run healthcare is the farthest thing from effective. The Huffington Post wrote an entire article explaining how health care in Canada is counter productive and costs more than it's worth (I). Keep in mind, this was the same program my opponent was promoting, yet again showing poor research. Medicaid is in a way socialism, since it is government run. So, states that didn't take Medicaid saved time and frustration rather than 'lost 17K lives'. The next few paragraphs from my opponent are referring to arguments that I never made, so I'll skip over those until PRO can explain them. Conclusion __________________________ In conclusion, I have proved that my opponent has made wrong statements from the very first sentence he wrote. There is no valid figure that explains that states that don't opt into Medicaid will have 17K die. It just doesn't make any sense at all. Back to you, pro. Bibliography I - . http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...