BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stigma: Depression is not a choice

As some of you may know, for years I have suffered from depression, isolation inflicted social anxiety and ocd, due to childhood emotional negligence, family alcoholism, and peer group rejection. Next month I'm at set to attend my first group therapy session with fellow people in need of counselling, but until that the these (nearly) 22 years of my life have been numb and lonesome. I simply don't know how to connect and form relationships. I want to discuss this issue with someone against mental health to get a better understanding on why this is so stigmatised so much. I feel people just view it as laziness and 'not wanting to work', that's certainly the view from family. I've been on antidepressants for 4 months now, and they have hardly show any compassion. To make things worse they did not attend my graduation last year and banned me from my young cousins birthday party cos of these differences in opinion. It's a strange disease because it thrives on arguments and isolation. Rules- Mutual Respect, no contempt or hate Debate can extend in comments section with others R1 is just acceptance and maybe a brief intro about Con, it may help if you address your political alignment in relation to your accounts. I'm centre leftish, I scored quite similar to Gandhi on an online political alignment test.
The Japanese Whalers are immoral and deserve the Sea Shepherds' actions.

I stand in the strictest Proposition of this resolution. I would like to define the following terms. Sea Shepherds an organization led by Paul Watson to stop the whaling in Antarctica. Immoral the action or quality of being unjust. Actions: actions taking place at the current time. Now My value for this round will be Harmonious Nature. Harmonious nature is the paramount value because without it our world where we are all ocnnected ceases to exist and we all die. The Affirmation is the only side that can achieve this because stating that the Japanese whalers are moral is stating that whaling itself is moral and this would not lead to Harmonious nature. My Value Criterion is Just action. Just action is the paramount Value Criterions because without just action we cannot achieve morality and without having morality nothing separates us from the animals. Contention one is that the Japanese whalers do not take Moral action. (a) The Sea Shepherds target the deck and simply make it more uncomfortable while the Japanese whalers have been known to target people and have shot Paul Watson and thrown flash grenades at the Sea Shepherds. (b) Whales are the gentle giants of the sea the Japanese whalers are destroying innocence which is no way moral. They are also cowards when the Sea Shepherds show up they run away but they obviously don't have a problem killing innocent defenseless whales. (c) They are taking advantage on a Law stating that they can only whale in the name of science and no more than 1000 whales can die a year. They kill about 950 to avoid legal issues. However the Law also states that none of the whale may be wasted. Thus they ship and pack the extra meat to sell to the market without using it for science. For all these reasons and more you must realize that the Japanese whalers are immoral and deserve what they are getting.
X-Box 360 > than WII or PS3

alright then i see your point on how the wii does have a lot of other options other than game play, now lets talk about online the wii does have free online while the 360 has a 7$ 21$ or 50$ option of payment its online is diverse and better. one the 360 doesnt need you to buy a wireless internet adapter or modem and router aswell as it giving you the option of saving friends and buying classic games and tv shos and movies. the online gameplay is almost lag free and pretty much flawless and you can get achievments, while the wii you need to get friend codes and have to buy a wireless router to play online
X-Box 360 > than WII or PS3

Yes the xbox360 does have good graphics but it is not the only thing that makes games. The very wii-mote has brought much innovation and new designs just going on youtube you will see many video's of people using there wii-mote for things such as opening and closing curtains. http://au.youtube.com... So when it all comes down its the fun you have with it not what it looks like. This is also a problem with the PS3 it puts to much of its having a strong machine but it fails when it comes to origanal games.
Christianity

Well I would like to concur that yes God could be an all knowing, and he has always been, and I believe that a higher power did make earth, but hear me out. If God is all knowing then how come he didn't stop Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. Or why he didn't stop Satan from trying to take over heaven. If he is all knowing then why did he not stop everything and restart. But he did with Noah and the Ark. Also think if he restarted then why is the world like it is today, instead of in harmony and peace.
Christianity

If there is a holy and righteous "God" then how do you explain his existence, because how was there a God before his time, if there has always been a God, then why didn't he make humans before? Also how could the earth be formed out of just rock? Because there are many plants, animals, and organisms that show that a higher power made this because rock couldn't form what the beautiful earth is today. So what side should anyone believe when nothing can be proven, only hypothesized.
i see not the unseen

First of all, the premise of your argument is based upon the fact that you don't know the things that you don't know. However, I do not see how this is proof in any way, shape or form that God is not real. As you have no way of proving that the God of any religion is nonexistent, your argument is essentially flawed and somewhat irrelevant. In addition to this, the premise you have used in this debate negates your conclusion, which is that god does not exist. If you do not know the unknown, you know that you don't know that God doesn't exist. This simply goes to show that the argument of side pro is crude and somewhat juvenile.
i see not the unseen

There is neither a way of proving or disproving the existence of God, so the conclusion at which you have arrived is fallacious in logic. The topic being debated over is not whether or not you have to believe in God, but whether or not side Pro can prove that god doesn't exist. In addition to this, side Pro has stated that "things are known or true". This statement has no meaning and therefore does not lead to the following statement.We have seen clearly today that side Pro lacks an actual argument and cannot defend their views.
Should you be allowed to bring your phone to school

I agree that you can bring your phone only for emergency uses and if your teachers ask you to bring them. But I don't like your idea of our phone replacing books as school material. You can easily tab out of your lesson and check some other app which I doubt most of the students in the world would do if phones were allowed in school. Also a large majority of people in the world use glasses to enhance their vision, phones as school material would degrade their eyesight more due to the radiation caused by these devices. Now if your asking me how it would their degrade their eyes when they can just move the phone a few inches away from their eyes, I've met a lot of people who wear glasses when even with glasses they still can't seen the closes thing near them. They can also use that for research but I doubt other students will be able to see what they've researched and they can always just write them down. Also, not everyone in the world has a phone. My conclusion is that phones will not help school but degrade it even more. Would you imagine a whole class having the freedom of using their phones in their class? No one listen to the teacher.
Should you be allowed to bring your phone to school

I think that they should allow phones in school for educational purposes like for research. Also so that in case of an emergency you know that someone in the school/class has there phone on them so they can call whatever they need to do. I also think that you need a phone especially for LA because there are now Ebooks that you can read the book on your phone. I think that phones in school can be very helpful for education in schools world wide.
Transgenders cannot objectively be the gender they claim they are:

Transgenders believe themselves to be the other gender because they feel like it, tat's all this comes down to. Mentally they are not the other gender, there is no such thing as a brain-sex, unless by mental gender you meant what they think they are, in which case mentally I am a purple/green unicorn. Your analogy of the lemon in an orange peel in fundamentally flawed because you can simply take the peel off of the lemon finding an orange, whereas you cannot skin bruce Junner to find out he is a woman wearing some poor mans skins. The most you could come up with is that they think like women or men, but this is also fundamentally flawed. For example, my stepdad is black, someone once told him "you're not black, you don't talk black," when in reality there is no official form of speech associated with black people.
Transgenders cannot objectively be the gender they claim they are:

First of all, my opponent gave a definition to the word "objective". Personally, I believe that he should've done this in the first round and that he should've shown the source, but I digress. As I presented in my own arguments, transgender people are mentally the opposite sex assigned to them at birth. It isn't solely "personal feelings and opinions", though they do come into play whether you're cisgender or transgender. Think of it like this: you have a lemon fruit. However, the lemon fruit is surrounded by the peel of an orange. Is it a lemon or an orange? Most people would probably say a lemon, as the fruit inside the orange peel is a lemon. Others would classify it as an orange, as it takes its physical appearance. So again, we'll use the example of the lemon. Let me ask you this: just because something looks like a orange, does that automatically make it an orange? The exact same question could be asked with sex. (Just because someone looks like in a man physically, does that automatically make them a man?) As for the example my opponent gave, you can prove with facts that you're the gender you identify as. This is talked about more in my arguments. Conclusion My opponent's arguments make it painfully clear that he can't differentiate gender identity and biological sex. With this, we can safely say that he hasn't made a proper argument in terms of content due to the lack of sources or facts in general. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's defense.
Transgenders cannot objectively be the gender they claim they are:

Alright, here is the definition of objective: "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." By definition, transgender cannot objectively be the gender they claim they are, sinthry claim to be this gender on that they feel as if they are that gender. And since objective is defined as not influenced by a persons feelings, but on facts, these transgenders are not objectively women, objectively, based on facts, they are men. Here is a very simple way to demonstrate what I am saying, if a man walked into a room and said "I am a woman" then I can just tell him, "alright, prove it." And he cannot, but if I claim thast I am male, theoretically there is a way to prove it. You could test my chromosomes, or check my birthb erificate, or ask my mom, or check my skeletal structure, or just have a doctor do an "examination" a to verify, but you cascasnnot prove that a transgender is the gender he says he is.
Enrique Iglesias is Gay or Bisexual

Please don't scrap all arguments, as that defeats the entire purpose of the debate. My opponent has tried essentially giving up on the debate. I don't think it's possible to prove whether or not he's bisexual, however the point of the debate is to argue one way or another. I have successfully argued with evidence showing why Enrique is heterosexual and not bisexual, since even my opponent acknowledges that he is not gay. Pro's last argument: Bisexuality is the safer betUnfortunately for my opponent, this is also untrue. According to an article written by a gay author, the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute estimates that 1.8 % of the population are bisexual, while 96.2 % of the population arenot LGBT, i. e. heterosexual. [1]Therefore, statistically speaking, a safer bet would be to bet on him being straight, although I'm only presenting these data to counter my opponent's argument and I am not suggesting that the voter vote Con simply because it's statistically more likely that a person is heterosexual. I have provided several arguments for why Enrique Iglesias is not gay or bisexual, and have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments. Thank you again for participating in this debate. Vote Con! [1] . http://gaylife.about.com...
Enrique Iglesias is Gay or Bisexual

Scrap all arguments and consider this:How to disprove his bisexuality? If something is unfalsifiable how can I prove it in the first place?His sexuality is something only he can know.Safer to bet on bisexuality than heterosexuality in the same way that betting either or red on a roulette is more risky than betting both (yes you technically would win nothing and lose nothing by doing so but I am focusing that you lose nothing).
Enrique Iglesias is Gay or Bisexual

Firstly I shall tear your argument apart then form my own.Your first point that "Enrique's long-term relationship with a girl" is no basis to disprove his bisexuality. It is redundant.the fact that he hesitates to state a guy he is attracted to and doesn't assert the point that he is into guys to an interviewer is 0% evidence that he isn't bisexual, it only means he isn't overtly stating he is."I've never cared about the gay rumor" indicates it is true. If it isn't, a straight man would probably be bothered whilst a bi man also has reason to find some truth in it. To answer your question "Since many have claimed he is gay, why not just come out and say he's not gay if it's untrue?" Firstly, he is with a girl and to say he is gay would break her heat because she would then know the only way he got off to her in bed was by imagining a man instead. Additionally, he might be bisexual and feel no need to publicise the less socially accepted side of his sexuality is perfectly happy keeping it hidden whilst being proud of the heterosexuality within him."You know, I'm not gay George" doesn't disprove bisexuality.You displayed 0% evidence to disprove his interest in men, only to suggest he is ashamed of it.http://www.youtube.com...My main contention is the nature of his outfits and videos.Firstly ALL his videos have overtly sexy and horny women in a drunken state. This is as if he is unable to be seen without a ton of raging women around him in public, as if he is compensating for his homosexuality perhaps? Just a thought, think of it like this: What does an average or dumb man do? They hang around friends dumber than themselves. What does a relatively ugly woman do? Hang around uglier ones. He is hanging around ridiculously heterosexual men all the time. Often making duos with the notorious Pitbull and Lil Wayne to make him seem rather 'decent' as a man for women. Just a possible interpretation.http://www.youtube.com... I also would like to point out that since he picks such notorious sexual beasts as partners in rhyme (pun intended) he perhaps has a thing for such men? You would actually find that both Lil Wayne and Pitbull happily do duos with several men of different walks of life as well as women. Enrique ONLY picks men for his duets... Yet another point.
Enrique Iglesias is Gay or Bisexual

May our debate be ever insightful and entertaining! Enrique's long-term relationship with a girlEnrique has been in a relationship with Anna Kournikova for over ten years, and have invested $20 million into a home together in Miami [1]. This is clear proof that he is interested in women. Enrique is asked a hypothetical, if he were interested in guys, and he doesn't correct the interviewerIn an interview with PrideSource, he mentions that he has close gay friends, and is essentially very supportive of all his fans, regardless of their sexual orientation. One of the interview questions is "if you were into guys, who would be your type? " Enrique's answer was essentially that it's a tough question and that he doesn't know, but the fact that he doesn't correct the interviewer and say he actually is into guys is evidence that he isn't. [2]Since many have claimed he is gay, why not just come out and say he's not gay if it's untrue? In the same interview, Enrique answers that he doesn't care about people claiming he's gay. He says "I've never cared about the gay rumor", implying that the idea that he is gay is simply that: a rumor. Enrique tells George Lopez that he's not gayIn an appearance on George Lopez's talk show, when probed about whether he's kissed a guy, he responds by giving Lopez a peck on the cheek, and then says "You know, I'm not gay George, but I gotta say that if I was gay, you'd be my kind of girl". We have several pieces of evidence indicating that Enrique is interested in women, and more importantly for my position in this debate, not interested in men. This, by definition, is heterosexual, not bisexual or homosexual. It's certainly possible that Enrique could be attracted to guys, but he has given no indication thereof, and, on the contrary, when asked about being gay, which would imply interest in guys, he either states that he's not gay or doesn't mention an interest in guys. Given the fact that he has shown he is quite comfortable around guys and with friends/fans/etc. who are gay, we have strong reason to believe that if he was sexually attracted to guys as well, he would have shown or stated it, such as in his drunken admissions at a concert in Australia. [4]I look forward to Pro's first round of arguments! [1] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] . http://www.pridesource.com...[3] . http://gawker.com...;[4] . http://unicornbooty.com...;
Enrique Iglesias is Gay or Bisexual

I will be arguing against the notion that Enqirue Iglesias is gay. I.e. my position is that Enrique is heterosexual, not bisexual or homosexual.This is to be an entertaining debate, and several of my friends debate with me, claiming that Enrique is gay or bisexual. I disagree with them and thought it would make a fun debate.Enrique Iglesias: The popular Spanish singer/songwriter known for popular works such as "Bailamos", "Tonight I'm Lovin' You", etc. Formally known as Enrique Miguel Iglesias Preysler.Rules:1. The burden of proof will be shared. Whoever makes a better case should be the winner.2. Please don't play semantic games like saying everyone is on some scale of sexuality and by definition everyone has some curiousity, therefore making everyone bisexual. You can have a man crush and not be homosexual or bisexual.3. First round is acceptance and greetings. Second round is for arguments. Third round is for more arguments and rebuttals. Final round is for closing rebuttals and closing statements. Please leave a comment if you have any questions on this.Good luck, and may our debate be ever fruitful!
"Lethal Weapon"/"Die Hard" launched the buddy cop genre, not "48 hours"

No, no, no, sir. The operative wording is "the two are normally cops". which implies a buddy cop film isn't restricted to both lead characters being "police officers". They can be FBI agents or CIA agents as in "This Means War" which grossed a whopping $156,491,279. As long as one lead character is a "law enforcement agent" that is "teamed up" with someone "opposite" his/her character and the "two work together to stop a crime" it will be, may be, or is considered a "buddy cop film." Your grievance that Cates is too disrespectful to Hammond is irrelevant to the heart of Cates's character and status. He is a redneck cop, so of course he's going to "dislike and disrespect a black convicted felon." Is it logical to assume that a redneck cop is going to cuddle a black felon, invite him over for Thanksgiving, and name a son after him? No. The character opposition made sense. As Ebert stated in 2004 about 48Hrs: "The two men start out suspicious of each other in this movie and work up to a warm dislike. But eventually, grudgingly, a kind of respect starts to grow." Citing Another 48 Hours is not relevant since your premise restricted the movies to LW, DH, and 48H, and not their franchises. It would be irrelevant to base this argument off your premise: that LW4 centered around an American superiority in its cliched representation of thuggish, martial artists Asian organization, therefore LW did not launch the buddy cop genre. That sir, would be a silly argument.
"Lethal Weapon"/"Die Hard" launched the buddy cop genre, not "48 hours"

Your comment: "The reason 48 Hours isn't a buddy film is because of the racism and lack of respect that Jack Cates" is based on opinion not a general consensus of what a "buddy cop film" consist of.Actually according to this source: only my definition of buddy cop movie really is the accepted definition:Wikipedia states:"A buddy cop film is a film with plots involving two people of very different and conflicting personalities who are forced to work together to solve a crime and/or defeat criminals, sometimes learning from each other in the process. The two are normally cops, but some films, such as 48 Hrs. (a cop and a con), that are not about two cops may still be referred to as buddy cop films."The operative word here is "may." It's never stated that movies that are not about two cops can be referred to as buddy cop movies, but only that maybe they could, which means the genereal consencious is that thost movies are usually about two cops working together, and in every true buddy cop movie there is also an ounce of respect. For this reason "48 Hours" can never really be a true buddy cop movie. It's too mean-spirited and vicious.In most buddy cop movies, the partners are free people. Though it's understandible that Reggie is a criminal. Still, the way he treats Hammond repeatedly is as if they're not really partners. He even states in the beginning of the movie: "We ain't partners, we ain't brothers, and we ain't friends."Now here's more on why "48 Hours" series isn't buddy cop: in the second movie, Cates is worse than he was in the first. He actually cheats Reggie of his money, against his will, with a smug arrogance.http://www.youtube.com...;