BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Transgenderism should not be considered a mental illness.

Transgenderism should not be considered a mental illness. (Personally, I'm neutral on this issue, I just want to learn more by debating.)Transgenderism: "A state or condition in which a person"s identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional ideas of male or female gender."Consider: "...deem to be; regard as..."Mental illness: "...disorders in which a person's thoughts, emotions, or behaviour are so abnormal as to cause suffering to himself, herself, or other people."1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance (i.e. Opponent agrees to the debate and terms of the debate).2nd round: Main arguments only.3rd round: Rebuttals/counters/additional points.Rules:- No abuse of semantics.(This is standard since I gave definitions)-No trolling.- A forfeit is an automatic loss.-Cite sources.Sources: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Transgenderism should not be considered a mental illness.

Biologically, certain sexes are driven towards different things. I will admit that not all of transgenders are caused by gender dysphoria, but still, striving to identify as a gender opposite to your biological one is not normal. You said that "[Transgenders] strive to adhere to the characteristics of a certain gender that they feel most comfortable with..." but it is abnormal to be more comfortable with identifying as the opposite gender. Our biological processes want us to identify as the gender that associates with our sex. Men are naturally compelled to be masculine, females are naturally compelled to be feminine. That is what testosterone and estrogen respectively are meant to do. Besides, if we look at the actual amount of people who are transgender, it's low. About 700,000 people in the U.S are transgender. Abnormal just means not normal. Statistically, 0.3 percent of the U.S population is trans. Transgenders are rare. Transgenders are very far from the norm. Also, being transgender very much causes harm in in of itself. Why would you want to be a male when you are biologically a female? The two children in the video you listed clearly did not have easy childhoods. As for being transgender being a "cure" for the suffering, the girl was clearly already transgender when he was about to commit suicide. Even when she was too young to even attend school, she wanted her male genitalia removed and was very distraught about it. Simply saying you are the other identity won't make your internal suffering go away. One last note, I want to just say that my argument was not meant to label transgenders as bad people. I just wanted to say that being transgender is indeed a mental illness. My views on transgenders were not in any way meant to be revealed in this argument, and I respect anyone who makes that choice. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
Transgenderism should not be considered a mental illness.

Strong and persistent identification with the opposite sex is what marks one with being transgender, or gender dysphoria. People who truly experience this have a strong disgust at their own genitalia, going so far as to perform self castrations. Gender dysphorics are also at much higher risk for depression and anxiety. If your listed definition of mental illness is true, transgenders fall under that category, whether truly having gender dysphoria or not. Transgenders definitely are not normal. I, personally, would rather have been born a female than a male due to numerous social and biological benefits, but I am fine with my gender as a male and can go on living my life. Transgenders downright LOATH the fact that they are their assigned genders. They don't FEEL like their gender even though their hormones SHOULD be telling them otherwise. I feel like a male, but just wish that I was female, and not even with great zeal. It's just some days I would go "Hey, I would be doing this easier if I was a female." Just like how some people wish they were a different eye color. Transgenders also are definitely causing suffering to themselves. Your trapped in a body that your mind is rejecting on a deep and personal level. That has got to be tough and I respect anyone going through that. As mentioned, it greatly heightens the risk of depression and anxiety as well. TL;DR : Transgender is a mental illness as it causes someone to feel like the opposite gender despite their biological processes, and it does indeed cause much inherent harm.
Creation (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

I accept your challenge and understand the constraints of this debate. Per protocol, I assume that sources are deemed necessary and thus I will provide them to support my arguments and refutations.Also, it seems that if there is any particular assertion that cannot be refuted sufficiently by the other debater, that point will automatically be awarded to the party making the assertion. This is established by your debate criteria. In addition, I would like to request that only facts be used in support of claims rather than speculation and "faith."
Creation (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Topic : This is a direct challenge debate on the topic of creation vs. evolution. Understanding the debate : Each participant will assert their theory. Each participant is responsible for the refutation of his opponent's theory. The debate is not judged by who has proved his theory, but rather who had better refuted the opponent's theory. The debate is set up this way because neither creation or evolution stands as a scientific fact. We are debating theory. If either side had the burden of proof, the opponent could win simply by invoking the absolute truth:"It's a theory, not a fact. Hence any argument is void for absolution. "Creationism will be defined as:The sovereign will of God creating all things. The general outline will be the Genesis account. Mechanisms of higher complexity will be argued. Creationism recognizes"micro-evolution", which is a variation within a species. (Big dog, little dog, yet still a dog). Evolution will be defined as:The types of evolution discussed by scientists are: 1. Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing) 2. Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets) 3. Chemical Evolution (the development of the larger elements from hydrogen) 4. Abiogenesis (the origin of organic life from non-organic molecules) 5. Biological Macro-Evolution (the development and diversification of biological life resulting in speciation)6. Biological Micro-Evolution (the development and diversification of biological life within a species. Observed and accepted by both sides. )Round 1 is acceptance. Round 2 is the establishment of theories. No rebuttals. Use the space to explain yourself well. Round 3 is rebuttalsRound 4 is closing arguments.
Atheism is a religion (Continued)

Vie_spex, you claim that "disbelief is not non belief." As it is a double negative, you claim that disbelief is belief. That is false. Dis- is expressing negation. Therefore disbelief is not belief, or no belief. Furthermore if you google disbelief you can see non belief is a synonym. You also claim that religions disbelieve in other religions. This is correct. They believe that their system is the only correct one, and believing that another one is also correct would be contradictory. So couldn't it be said atheism is a religion due to it having a belief system? No. Atheism has a non-belief system. Wikipedia defines belief system like so: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty." This would prove your case. However this is for any belief, including gravity. We need a more specific definition. One for faith. This is how faith is defined by google: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Ah. Good. You see atheism has no god, no doctrines and uses science as proof as I pointed out in our previous debate. So we must come to the conclusion that atheism has no faith system as it does not meet the definition of religious faith. It's the opposite. It uses science and evidence we have found through rigorous scientific research and theories to come up with a system of beliefs, or non-beliefs. Furthermore how is an opposing religion a religion? It would be a non-religious as it is the oppodite and against religions. Yet if your reasoning is that it's because it's against other religions, then every religion would be an opposing religion, which is a non religion.
Atheism is a religion (Continued)

This is a continuation of our previous debate on whether or not atheism is a religion. I'm arguing that it isn't, and vie_spex is arguing that it is. Rules: [1] No trolling [2] Be civil [3] Try not to use logical fallacies [4] If you need extra time or want to continue this debate, message me. [5] You have to answer in 72 hours in order to prevent bugs. [6] You have a max of 10,000 characters. If you need more, put your argument on a Google document and submit that as your argument. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements Round 2 - Opening arguments are rebuttals Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments/Statements
Qualified Immunity

IntroHayd asked for people who were willing to debate old LD topics with him, and I was happy to volunteer myself. I don't believe Hayd and I have debated yet, so this should be a wonderful opportunity to do so--he is an excellent debater, and I look forward to our upcoming exchange.As this topic involves a controversial subject on which people may or may not have strong opinions, I have opted to nominate a judging panel of people I know to be qualified, to reduce the chance of judging bias. Those judges, by accepting this debate, agree to set aside their personal views on the topic and to adjudicate the round as impartially as they can; they also agree to refrain from discussing their vote or the outcome of the debate with any third party or the debaters themselves before casting their ballot. The judges are: Airmax, Whiteflame, Danielle, Lannan, Tej, Warren, and Smithers. If Hayd would like to have this list altered in any way, he should inform me before the start of the debate. The voting period lasts 14 days.TopicThe United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officersTermsOught - implies moral desirabilityLimit - to curtail or reduce in quantity or extentQualified Immunity - a legal doctrine which "protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs' rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was 'clearly established,' courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights" (Cornell Law School). Additionally, qualified immunity is a pretrial defense which prevents discovery and prevents a case proceeding to trial.Police Officer - an employee of the government whose job it is to enforce laws, investigate crimes, protect the public, and make arrestsRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution, e.g. the assumption that morality exists)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. The first round is for acceptance only11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Case; Con's CaseR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR5. Pro generic Rebuttal and Crystallization; Con generic Rebuttal and CrystallizationThanks......to Hayd. I am looking forward to having this chance to debate you!
The Christian God exists

I'll let the first forfeit pass. NCAR must post his argument for God's existence in Round 3, though, or else he loses. I would also like to say this: If The Bible proves the Christian God's existence, Pro needs to point out which part logically proves God's existence. The Bible can not only say "God did this and that", the Bible needs to show logic pointing to Omnipotence, Omniscience, and caring. Sure, the Bible could have been God's word, but who's to say God didn't lie to us?
The Christian God exists

My opponent seems to believe in the Christian God, and the Bible, very strongly. I do hope he has a good argument suggesting the following criteria to be true: 1. God is Omnipotent; able to do everything. 2. God is Omniscient; knows everything from the distant past, to what the year 2025 will be like. 3. God is watching over us as of right now. I will attempt to prove all of these to be false, and Pro must prove these to be true. If Pro is able to prove at least 2 of these criteria, he wins. With that, let's get into this! Argument: Point 1; God lacks Omnipotence. We have over 7 billion people on Earth, and at least 10 people die each 24 hour cycle, I believe. Either by natural causes, or even murder. Murder is considered a sin. God doesn't approve of sin. From this, we can deduce the following: P1: If God is omnipotent, murder doesn't have to happen. P2: Murder happens every 24 hour cycle. C1: Therefore, God can't be omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then why create a universe with death? Apparently, God got fed up with Man's constant sinning, so he made us mortal. If he's able to make us mortal, why not make us without sin entirely? P4: If God is omnipotent, then he can make a sinless Universe. P5: He didn't make a sinless Universe. C1: Therefore, God can't be omnipotent. God must be omnipotent, according to the definition. I've shown this isn't likely the case. Point 2: God lacks caring qualities. Continuing from my previous point, we can deduce that God probably doesn't care all that much. If God isn't caring, then why assume he's watching over all our shoulders? P1: If God created the Universe, he can remove Adolf Hitler from existence. P2: God did make the Universe. C1: God is able to remove Hitler. P3: God is able to remove Hitler for mankind. P4: Hitler was not removed. C2: Therefore, God doesn't mind Hitler torturing everyone. Seriously, God? Not removing the evil of World War II? I don't see any other explanation than these three. Either: 1: God was unable to remove Hitler, and the Bible exaggerated his Omnipotence. 2: God didn't mind Hitler, and let him reign tyranny over Germany. Or 3: Both? Pro must choose from one of these 3 options. Point 3: God might not be Omniscient. It seems I am linking my points together. If God is Omniscient, then why does Man sin? All sorts of crazy, bloody, events happened; The Boston Massacre, World Wars, plagues, racism... God could've prevented all this, had he seen these coming beforehand. Point 4: Judging God. 1: If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, then why'd he allow the events I listed, happen? Answer: He likely doesn't care. 2: If God cares (Therefore watching us), then why'd he restrict our powers to mere mortals? Answer: He likely isn't able to... or thought mortals are better than Superman. 3: If God is Omniscient, then what does he say Pro will respond with? Answer: Find out, next round. Let's hear what Pro has to say as to God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and him caring enough to watch us. He must be able to prove 2 of those 3 factors true.
The Christian God exists

I believe that the God from the Bible does not exist. Definitions: (Christian) God; The omnipotent,, omniscient being that created the Universe according to the Bible. He supposedly created all life, and Heaven. Omnipotent; Able to do anything and everything (ignoring the unliftable rock) Omniscient; Knows everything about the Past, Present, and potential Futures. Exists; has objective being within our Universe. Rules: 1. A forfeit counts as a concession to the opposing side's case, especially in Round 5. 2. No trolling, kritiks, semantics, etc. 3. God must be A) Omnipotent, B) Omniscient, and C) Proven to be in our Universe right now, for Pro to win. If at least two of these criteria isn't sufficiently met, then Con (Me) wins. 4. Burden of Proof is shared. Con must prove that the Christian God doesn't exist, and isn't Omnipotent, Omniscient, and currently watching us. Pro must prove all these criteria to be true. 5. No new arguments in the 5th round. I will begin my arguments in Round 2. I await my opponent.
Hannibal was an incompetent general

This will be a debate about a historical topic. This debate is impossible to accept, so write your proposed topic in the comments and I'll invite the person with the best proposal to debate. Please include all definitions and assumptions you'd like to use in your comment. Structure will be as follows: Round 1: acceptance only, no arguments Round 2: Opening statements for each side (no rebuttals allowed) Round 3: Rebuttals and additional arguments Round 4: Final rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources are encouraged, but Wikipedia is not allowed as a source. Use of Wikipedia or non compliance with the debate structure will result in a 7 point penalty. Looking for a serious debater who won't troll or forfeit. Burden of proof will be shared. I am slated for Con so you must be in favor of whatever prompt you give.
Convert me to your religion

1. The world begun through what I want to call the "Cosmic Turtle". It's basically changing a few things over from the inaccurate term "Big Bang". My religion is like Science, so it can be shaped if needed as errors are a human trait. The theory I have is that life came in this order: matter, amoeba, water, fungi, plant into oxygen, fish, animal and Man. 2. No, this religion believes yourself and your relationship with the Universe. 3. It's not "god" here; it's "Universe". It is not a being - it's becoming. 4. Approximately 13,000,000,000 years - still young even now. 5. Allegory - very wise allegory. 6. I do not believe in anything. Belief is not in this religion - acceptance is. The word itself has "lie" in the middle. 7. Evolution is a theory that is missing a lot of keys and points that my religion covers to an absurd level. Feel free to ask anything about this Universe, as I know all there should be known about it. Yes, I am human; yes I do not know anything. What I do understand enough, though, is that I have access to a brain - this brain is connected to the Universe. Everything the human behavior is, happens to be based on the Universe's behavior - one on a macro level; the other on a micro level. 8. Again, it's a theory that is missing a lot of keys and points. Also, the name is misleading. "Cosmic Turtle" is a better term. Some things to think about: This religion is designed and refined for the Universe only. It eliminates your desire and your ego, but keeps the importance of your experiences, emotions and feelings on a transient level. A relationship between heart and brain - knowing when to use your heart; knowing when to use your brain. The human body's biological system exists on the same frequency as this planet we live on. Bees behave like electrons - electrons can demonstrate many things about human behavior, like when they become irritated they become wild and noisy. That's one for the human body, the planet and the subatomic particles. Here's one for the Universe: the planets of our solar system may appear to be suspended in space, just orbiting the sun without any magnificent show going on, but a person with a keen eye can tell that the planets are indeed scattered in the same way as a ripple effect, as in everything is close near the center, but as it expands, it starts to creates this effect: ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Convert me to your religion

1. How did the world begin? 2. Does the religion believe in Jesus? Why or why not? 3. Does the religion believe in god? Why or why not? 4. How long was the world here for? 5. Bible. True or just a book? 6. Do you believe in Mohammed 7. Evolution. Happened or false? 8. Big bang. Happened or hot air? More questions are coming up next round.
Convert me to your religion

Existence is a state; it's not static. It's the "result of being", not being. We are not "being", they are "benign", in a cosmic tapestry which is unfinished by design - all things that are now, once were, will one day be. The Universe is actually very simple at heart, but truly complex with all the shapes and forms it recreated itself in, as to experienced itself through many different animations from plant, fungi, bacteria, animal and Man. We are naive, not alive. In order to accept this religion, one must think about all which they have yet to, instead of thinking all which they already have.
Convert me to your religion

I introduce you to finest religion of all: Realigion. It's a mix between heart, brain; philosophy, psychology, ontology and science. In order to accept this religion, you must accept the Universe. Are you willing to accept the Universe? If not, then at least consider this - there is no "human being"; all things "human", is really the subatomic particles existing through everything "us" to create the animation which we experience. Let me know if you need help.