BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
non binary and gender-fluid aren't real genders

Rebuttal: Opponent fails to make really any mention of why non-binary and gender fluidity aren't "real" genders. I'd agree that gender isn't something that one "wakes up" and decides to change, it's often a deeply held conviction that is only revealed and understood over a long period. This isn't really a very strong argument against common sociological conceptions with regard to gender. Substantative: P1: Gender conceptions vary from society to society Evidence: Blackwood's classic study of individuals who were viewed as "cross-gender" within Navajo society,[1] where there were many many conceptions of gender - "male-bodied female", or "feminine male" being included among them. The obvious conclusion here is that gender conceptions must therefore be created by society - there's no transcendental category of "male" or "female" common to all societies/cultures. C1: Gender is societally constructed P2 : Societally constructed things can change over time. Evidence: Conceptions of gender have changed in modern day society C2: Gender can change over time. Therefore, any understanding of any gender as more or less "valid" or indeed real than another is an invalid logical contention. The categories were made by man for man, not man for the categories. The resolution is negated. 1.)https://www.journals.uchicago.edu...
Abortion

Look. . . I know Abortion. I know killing baby is wrong, God damn it I know. But for a woman that already got raped, And before she can even get over the trauma of being raped, Before she can even get a rehab, She needs to be reminded for the next 9 months when she's pregnant. . . I'm saying it's okay if the woman wants the child of rape. I'm saying if a rape victim woman, Says that she is not ready to be pregnant while crying try to not lose her mind. . . Being forced to just deal with it. . . if you want to put god out from here, I'm just gonna say. . . At least give her this kind of exception for a rape victim. Brutal indeed, But she needs recovery. but if you want me to put god in here, I'm just gonna say that I am the son of Adam (like all the man on earth). And if Adam can lose his lust to Eve, A woman. . . I'm gonna say me too. to choose an unborn baby life or a women insanity. . . she's been through and all, I'm sorry. . . But what can I do is to agree for her to choose to send the unborn baby to heaven, And made the sin. You can call me a monster, But this is all I can do for a woman that is a raped victim that's not ready to get pregnant. I will stand for the abortion just for this one.
Abortion

For the woman that got raped, Can only agree with her one. after the incident, I'm gonna make sure that she got her therapy and after that, I'm gonna make her learn how to avoid rape and how to defend yourself from rapist. and make sure the area of the incident is full on patrol 24 hours. so yeah, For the same woman I give her only 1 abortion. but for every woman. . . It could be a lot man. if there are 100 women that got pregnant because of rape. . . . Then only that time I could let them get an abortion. after that, They need to go to the procedure I mentioned before. so yeah. . . . 3? nope, Right now men are f*cking disgusting I tell you that. sad it is. . . But there are a lot of women that got pregnant cause of rape and not yet ready to be pregnant for 9 months.
Morality is Objective

I want to keep this one short for a change. Pro's arguments were merely his own unsubstantiated judgments. Moreover, they do not even address the nature of morality; they only address the supposed value of objective morality. His first argument was essentially that objective morality is true because subjective morality is "unstable," and it should be noted that he does not describe what he means by unstable. Finally, he formulated a false dichotomy. This is problematic for him because he seeks to background complexities while I seek to uncover them. His second "argument" was that objective morality is a truthful standard. He bases it on the assumption that we all define stealing in the same way. I have demonstrated an instance where our understanding of stealing becomes complicated, which in this case is a legitimate semantic argument because it is completely germane to the issue at hand. It should be stated that a semantic argument would only be problematic if I were to illogically refuse to accept a definition, especially if I failed to provide any reasoning for my objection. Finally, his last point in C2 is a separate argument from C2. He failed to substantiate this claim. In its present state, it is more like a judgement than actual argument since it lacks substantiated premises. Vote pro because my arguments were quite clear as I provided examples to simplify them. Pro's arguments were actually not really arguments at all, but unsubstantiated judgments. Moreover, his objections to my arguments were weak. He failed to substantiate his objections, regularly claiming my arguments to be irrelevant without any further explanation to why they were irrelevant. In the few cases where he provided reasoning, I have provided sufficient reason to discount his objections. Lastly, he broke his on rules. He did not discuss the nature of morality, but its apparent value to society if we accept objective morality.
Morality is Objective

I'm just going to skip through and argue only the points I think are relative. "This is interesting. Pro justifies conquest, or expansion onto inhabited land, with a need to survive. Sorry, no one in the US at the time of Manifest Destiny needed to expand their horizons to survive. More importantly, we see here that Pro constructs an answer to the question I raised and a justification for that answer. His answer and his justification are laden with his interests. Obviously, he does not want to be considered a thief, which I would not consider him one; however, many Native Americans may differ in their evaluation. P. S. Pro, Manifest Destiny was not a social contact, especially not for the Indians. " - I'm not justifying anything; this point is irrelevant. "I explicitly said that I was not going in depth on racial issues; however, I explained how we impose "morality" on certain bodies. The criminalized black man was only a example of a body that historically represents "crime" in the US. The main point was that we impose morality onto objects. " - If you weren't going to go indep with this argument, you shouldn't have touched on it at all; you've wasted your character space by presenting such an askew argument only to later drop it. "Pro's argument diminishes complexities within society. For instance, does this society actively produce inequality? In pro's argument, we get no sense if the hungry man is hungry because he just forgot to eat breakfast, or if his society is actively prohibiting him from food sources. Additionally, we can see clearly that the definition of "stealing" benefits the woman in Pro's argument. " - This argument is incredibly semantic, my illustration was intentionally simple to drive home this basic point. If we hold to Occom's Razor, then in order for us to be able to get to the bottom of a situation as logically as possible, we must follow the most simple explanations. "Human emotions are in play regardless if we construct a solid standard between morality and immorality. We cannot get rid of our emotional responses; however, we can come to realize them and become aware of how they affect our understanding of morality. "
Morality is Objective

However for the next round, I would like to request that he use more breaks in his paragraphs so that it is an easier read; as well as post mark individual arguments for greater clarity. So just as a brief road-map I will be attacking a few areas my opponent has touched on, and that I will extend certain arguments from my case over. It is also important to note that my opponent hasn't actually attacked any area of the Pro case, so all arguments I have presented must extend across the debate for consideration in voting. Con- + First my opponent contends that all things exist in two forms; the ideology, and the reality. This goes along with some of the philosophies of Plato; that while all things have a reality of what they actually are, they also have an interpretation completely unique to each individual. This is the ideal state of the object. Like my opponent said, there is a chair and there is the idea of a chair; so while the reality is that the chair is hard and rotting, a person may have romanticized the chair to be comfortable and luxurious. However individual interpretation does not change what is; just because the chair is perceived as luxurious, that does not change that it is rotting and uncomfortable. And in the same way, just because certain actions are perceived one way does not make them as such. Refer to my own contention 1 where I give the example of the pregnant mother, and the able bodied man; we perceive the actions of the pregnant mother not to be immoral, or at the very least permissible; whereas we perceive the actions of the able bodied man to be incredibly immoral. They are however the same thing. Also, again; this debate is not about what is moral or immoral, but it is about the nature of morality. + My opponent also uses the philosophies (albeit minimally) of Nietzsche and Foucault; however we must realize that these individuals reject the existence of morality. This is particularly important as my opponent has professed to have based a large portion of his argument on these two theories. Here we see how these of ideas of subjective morality come into play; based on skewed and false interpretations of truth. + After this my opponent gets into a discourse on a country expanding itself, and on a society conforming to certain standards in order to survive. However this is not morality; this is the social contract. + Finally my opponent presents the illustration of a black man and the stigma the all black men are criminals; However this argument is dealing with the issue of stereotyping, not of subjective v. s. objective morality Overall many of my opponent's arguments are completely irrelevant to the debate at hand, whereas another good portion of them are misguided arguments based on false dichotomy. It would also appear that my opponent ignored my third clarification, as a good chunk of his case is attacking a moral stance that was never presented in this debate; nor was it grounds of debate.
Morality is Objective

Obs1: When we look to such as resolution as this, one thing is brought to light as being substantially clear. True morality is not a subject that can be flippant in nature; but is directly polar in nature. Obs2: The resolution's intention is not for us to decide what is moral or immoral, but it is to show whether or not morality is subjective. C1: Subjective morality is unstable- If we accept that stealing is wrong, then this should be the standard; that stealing is wrong. we should not have to make this ideal of of whether or not stealing is wrong subjective because of a person's needs/ or wants. Say an able bodied man was slightly hungry, and stole food from an old woman on social security in order to satisfy hi hunger; this would be blatantly wrong, we would see this as a blatantly immoral action as they are depriving another human being of their food. Broadening the scope, if a starving pregnant mother stole food from an incredibly man, would it be an immoral action? Yes, absolutely; Despite the fact that we as a society would have more pity on the starving mother, it does not change the fact that she committed an immoral act, and thereby put an undeserved act on this rich man. She stole to satisfy the needs of herself and her child, but she stole nonetheless. Justifying it as moral because it is a necessity only serves to destroy true moral fiber, as one will then justify any action to their benefit as moral in order to justify the action to themselves. C2: Objective Morality is a truthful standard Again, if we accept the standard that stealing is wrong, we must continue to accept this standard through all scenarios; failing to do so rejects all of what morality is, all of what morality stands for. By keeping a strong, solid standard between the moral and the immoral; we do not allow human emotion to come into play, and thus limit what s true. Underview: Subjective morality is nothing but an excuse to maintain personal integrity; the cost is the forfeiting of truth of for nothing but vague ideals suited to the desires of the individual, not the truth of what is moral. The fact is that morality is not always a feel-good, right-for-me kind of thing; it the pivotal institute for the serving of justice.
Morality is Objective

Rules: - No semantics - Vulgarity - The debate will not hinge too majorly evidence, but more so on logic; that said evidence is allowed. - Forfeiting of a round will count as a forfeit of the entire debate. - Breaking the round structure will be counted as a forfeit. - This is a text only debate, no videos may be posted containing the debater's arguments, and no links may be posted showing arguments posted elsewhere. They must be posted in this round! - After round two, no new arguments may be made. Clarifications: - As the Pro in this debate, I will be arguing that for morality is objective in nature, meaning that there is only one set standard for what is moral. - My opponent as the Con will be arguing that Morality is Subjective in nature.
Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research

While I admit the analogy of the girl was far fetched, it was an example. DEFENSE 1- According to the website [http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...] you got the "the whole world uses up to three every second" example, I don't think you got the concept. Just because they use a certain amount per year, 100 million. That doesn't mean they kill one every 3 seconds just for the hell of it, it could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up. DEFENSE 2- Then we shall try and test on them in the least painful way possible. However, since thats often impossible, it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones. Furthermore, I feel you are trying to evoke emotions in me, but I am just as passionate about this as you are about that. DEFENSE 3- Humans are not JUST animals. I am not saying we AREN'T animals but we are also more than that, we have the most complex brains in the animal kingdom and more importantly- WE are human, and we should do everything in our power to advance our kind. Argument 1- Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice, .25% our Non-Human Primates. The rest our made up of other small primates. The reason rodents are so popular is because of there short life spans which allow for speedier disease development in the rodents. Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule compared to the amount of years of human lives they can be saving. The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer Childhood Leukemia Lung Cancer (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV Heart Disease Diabete And many more! The rodents save lives. 1[http://www.mofed.org...] 2[http://www.amprogress.org...]
Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research

"A ton of it is going to animal testing." This is a weak point because the funding to the sciences as is is little enough, and the information is worth much more than the costs of testing. Only a fraction of tax money is even going to animal testing at all and it is a ludicrous notion that 136 Million is a lot, "Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010" I did the math and exactly 0.00629% of tax dollars. Your pain argument is also ludicrous. You make a moral claim, but I could make a moral equilibrium by saying there pain is justified by the pain it saves us from. You are recommending rats are equal to us, " At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something." We are far beyond rats in an evolutionary perspective. Furthermore " rats get rid of many insects." is an invalid point because A. Rats carry insects that harm us as well and B. Rats in labs are bred especially for the purpose of testing, and otherwise wouldn't have been born. We kill so many rats a year to further our knowledge of science and to save lives. Rats wiped out huge portions of the european population with the black plague for none because they didnt know what they were doing, becasue they are RATS. "Mice share more than 98% DNA with humans, therefore, animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans." [3] and you said "That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans." which is simply not true. The genetic similarities of mice and men is outstandingly close, and we use mice the most when researching. You said that "95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans." Which is irrelevant considering that all of the major medicines developed in the past 5 years have used animals. Also you said, and I quote, "rats take up 85% of the animal testing population." Which is not true, I never said that, I said "Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice" I said rats and mice, meanwhile of that percentage only 18% are rats. That rabbit you pulled up has no sources whatsoever and as far as I know is probably used in testing hair products, which we aren't debating. You are simply trying to evoke emotions in the voters, thats not passion thats manipulation. Also your post about the murder is completely invalid. The reason humans are worth more than the mice being tested is that we are smarter! We aren't just small minded eating machines, he are thoughtful individuals that come together and form solutions to the problems regarding our race, like cancer, and those solutions often involve the testing of animals You said that your brother has diabetes. Want to know what keeps him alive? Insulin. And want to know how they made that? By animal testing. 1[http://www.dummies.com...] 2[http://www.history.com...] 3[http://ca-biomed.org...]
Global warming is real

My RefutationsThe problem here is that my opponent has never given a reason why information dated from 1998 is a problem. It is recent data after all, it is just a mere 15 years old. It's not the most recent, but it is not incredibly old either.My opponent then said he Google searched the hottest years and global warming and put up the three first results, but he does not explain much. It looks far too recent and we must look and longer historical trends. In fact, climate change has occured all through the history of the Earth. It will continue like this and it has both been very warm before and very cold. It has been quite warm at the moment, but a cooling trend is expected. [1]Yes, the Earth is warming, but it will likely cool in the future. "The claim that Ross Gelbspan is the only one accusing the companies of lying is a semantic trick. My implication wasn't that the Idso family is lying, however they have ideological and financial biases here, which is why you should be skeptical of their work given that they are joined by less than 3% of the scientific community."You are skeptical, but just because only 3% disagree does not mean it is wrong. That is likely saying most economists were correct to predict massive economic growth in the 1930s after seeing what happened in the 1920s (and this is true). Only a small amount of economists predicted the Great Depression. Also, this "consensus" thing is more of a myth than a reality. As said here:"It is a strange claim to make. Consensus or near-consensus is not a scientific argument. Indeed, the heroes in the history of science are those who challenged the prevailing consensus and convincingly demonstrated that everyone thought wrong. Such heroes are even better appreciated if they take on not only the scientific establishment but the worldly and godly authorities as well."I can bring more of my own studies proving that man-made global warming is likely incorrect. In fact, my third source will give you over 1,100 different peer-reviewed papers. [3]ConclusionI am very sorry I cannot expand my arguments but something personal as come up, but I do think I have been able to respond to everything. If I had more time, I assure you I would give a longer refutation.Sources1. http://www.skepticalscience.com...2. http://wattsupwiththat.com...3. http://www.populartechnology.net...
Global warming is real

My Refutations"The use of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change as a source is almost worse than having no sources at all. First of all, the page my opponent links to was written in 1998."My opponent needs to explain himself better. I have no idea why its bad and he has no source to support him. Instead, he has a source to attack the owners of the organization, but that does not refute the data given and the fact that most proponents of global warming have no decent refutation themselves. This means refutation here holds. In fact, one could say that this idea that "big oil is making lies" is completely a myth. The main proponent that this corruption exists is environmental journalist Ross Gelbspan who accused the these companies lying about global warming:"This is the only accusation there is, and it spirals back in each case to one source. Ross Gelbspan. Nobody else independently confirms or corroborates it, they just repeat it. Endlessly. And just like Gelbspan and Gore, not a shred of physical evidence is shown to prove money was given in exchange for demonstratively false fabricated science assessments. If multiple easily found problems with the ‘skeptic scientists receive corrupt fossil fuel industry funding’ narrative give a clear indication of how the whole accusation is in danger of total collapse, then we have a major problem with the long-held idea that there is no credible science-based opposition to the idea of man-caused global warming." [1] My opponent's "consensus" is really nothing but a bunch of people who have not looked too deeply into the issue or their liars and frauds. My opponent has also provided absolutely no data on the issue. If my opponent cannot provide counter data.ConclusionThe debate here is clearly in my favor. My opponent goes on about how corrupt some people are in one organization, but this is simply not true. In addition, he has provided no counter data.Sources1. Cook, Russell. "The First, the Last, and the Only Accusation Against Skeptics. Repeat It Often, Inexplicable Errors Are Optional." Gelbspanfiles.com. Gelbspan Files, 8 June 2013. Web.