BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuals should be banned from giving blood

=Rebuttal=" I have established that there isn't a benefit to legalising it"You have established this:i. Many gay men have HIVii. Tests are "99%" accurateiii. 2800 Gay men would donate bloodAnd to say, you never provided a source in your first argument."A tiny amount of straight people have HIV"Incorrect. Actually, recorded cases of HIV between hetero and homosexual contact are just about EQUAL."were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact (19%) and heterosexual contact (19%)e compared to other transmission categories. " (1)To say that a tiny amount of straight people and a LARGE amount of gay men with HIV is incorrect. You're argument, is faulty and illogical, void, and absent from statistics."considering that there is no need for gay blood donations."Blood donations are needed. Every second you breath, is another second someone needs blood. "More than 41,000 blood donations are needed every day" (2)And a single donation could save lives."One donation can help save the lives of up to three people."(2)"True, they cannot enforce it 100% but at least a law against it would decrease the amount of gay people"By how much? There are laws against illegal drugs but cartels and dealers make thousands a month from it. A common reason why people donate blood is simply "they want to help". So why don't you let them?The only source you provided for round two only helps my argument."All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (3)Article one.=Argument=ii. Looking at statisticsOf course, this being an estimate, we aren't 100% sure, but the number can be very close; only 1,144,500 persons above the age of 13 have HIV infections. Your original claim that "2.8 million HIV positive gay men" is most likely faulty.(4)Every donor is also checked to make sure they can donate blood."Every blood donor is given a mini-physical, checking the donor's temperature, blood pressure, pulse and hemoglobin to ensure it is safe for the donor to give blood." (2)Further more,"All donated blood is tested for HIV, hepatitis B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases before it can be released to hospitals."They don't just check for HIV, they check for everything.=Sources=(1) http://www.cdc.gov...(2) http://www.redcrossblood.org...(3) http://www.un.org...(4) http://www.cdc.gov...
Homosexuals should be banned from giving blood

Agreed, many gay men do not have HIV, and in an ideal world we could allow them to give blood. However, your argument rests upon the premise that lives would be saved if gay people were allowed to give blood. In a country where there isn't a severe blood shortage, people who need blood will still get the blood they need irrespective of whether gay people are allowed to give blood. Only around 5% of people are homosexual, which would mean that there would be a minuscule increase in the blood pool if gays were allowed to give blood. Ultimately then, the benefit to the health system provided by the blood of healthy homosexuals is very little. Now I have established that there isn't a benefit to legalising it, I ask you why then we should legalise it when the larger consequence of doing so is an increase in the amount of HIV blood being donated. You are correct in asserting that HIV tests are very accurate, but they are by no means faultless. Inevitably, more HIV blood will be added to the supply if homosexuals were allowed to give blood than if they weren't. "Now assuming you're claims are what I think they are, straight people with HIV shouldn't donate blood either. Saying that Gays have HIV thus shouldn't donate blood, is the equivalent of saying since Straight people have HIV, they shouldn't donate blood." A tiny amount of straight people have HIV, yet the vast majority of people are straight so they must be allowed to give blood otherwise supply would not be met. At present, supply is met by straight blood donations. Yet allowing homosexuals to give blood adds a disproportionate amount of HIV-infected blood to the blood pool considering that there is no need for gay blood donations. "IF this "law" passed how could hospitals be sure they're gay? Possibly, married couples could be snuffed out, but what about Gay men with boyfriends? It would be near impossible to find out then seeing as there wouldn't be much if at all, proof he is gay." Well, the law has always been that gay people cannot give blood because of the exact reasons I have mentioned. True, they cannot enforce it 100% but at least a law against it would decrease the amount of gay people who do give blood. I believe they enforce it currently in the form of a pre-donation questionnaire. "To close, it's also their right to donate blood if they're gay or not." You cannot make up human rights based on personal opinion, if it is a right, kindly point it out to me: http://www.un.org...
Homosexuals should be banned from giving blood

==Argument== However, what about the 11.2 million gay men that AREN'T infected with HIV? If they donated blood, many lives could be saved. Pro is looking at ONLY the ones infected with HIV, not the ones. To further add, if an HIV-Positive man donated blood, there is a VERY high chance that it would be seen as HIV-Positive blood and disposed of. "that leaves 2800 undetected HIV-positive" Seeing the accuracy of the tests when blood is donated, most of them would be filtered out. On top of that, often hospitals check to see if someone has bad blood before donating. In total about 5 of them would get by the system. Now assuming you're claims are what I think they are, straight people with HIV shouldn't donate blood either. Saying that Gays have HIV thus shouldn't donate blood, is the equivalent of saying since Straight people have HIV, they shouldn't donate blood. To add even more, IF this "law" passed how could hospitals be sure they're gay? Possibly, married couples could be snuffed out, but what about Gay men with boyfriends? It would be near impossible to find out then seeing as there wouldn't be much if at all, proof he is gay. To close, it's also their right to donate blood if they're gay or not. 1 man's blood could save 1 man's life.
Homosexuals should be banned from giving blood

On a pragmatic basis, opening up blood donations to allow one gay person to give blood must allow all gay people to give blood. Whilst it is nonsense to suggest all homosexuals are riddled with HIV, there is definitely a larger proportion of HIV-positive people in the gay community. Mathematically speaking, let's say that 20% of gay men are HIV positive. There are around 14 million gay men in the USA which makes there about 2.8 million HIV positive gay men in the USA. Taking HIV tests to be 99.9% accurate then that leaves 2800 undetected HIV-positive individuals that would be allowed to give blood if the law was changed. If there was a really serious shortage then the benefits of blood donation might outweigh the risks, but for now I struggle to believe that the benefits of allowing homosexuals to give blood outweighs the risks of the HIV-infected blood that would inevitably be added to the blood supply. At the end of the day, once you get HIV you can never lose it. It can also be a horrendous disease if it leads to AIDS. Is it worth increasing the risk by allowing homosexuals to give blood? If there were positives to allowing them, I would be more willing to support their choice to give blood. But from what I can see there is no benefit apart from giving homosexuals an opportunity to validate their own self-worth.
Cats are better than dogs

Many people also like dogs because they are very cute and cuddly. When you said "Cats can hear sounds better than the human ear" you are not comparing them to dogs anymore. A dogs sense of smell is superior to the cat. Dogs also keep people fit and like to run around with their owners, while cats just sit indoors all day. Dogs are also loyal to their owner, while cats are not. Finally "dog dust" contain microbes that respond to allergens, therefore preventing asthma. over to you
Cats are better than dogs

Cats are better because many people like cats and they are also very cute, cuddly and also love to be combed. Dogs don't stay still and move in such a hurry, they lick your face, like to play in the mud. Most people are lovers for cats and the cats also adore their owners plus they clean them selves sometimes, they are also very elegant. A small, usually furry, domesticated, and carnivorous mammal and mostly like fish, chicken and sometimes cheese. Cats can hear sounds better than the human ear.
Cats are better than dogs

The real challenge is that i can only use 500 characters and its good for you because i cannot say every single flaw that is right in my face, but i cannot say it all i have to be fairly brief. This entire paragraph is bias and you have no scientific facts that support your preposterous claims on cat bias. Probably the only fact you stated was that cats are furry, dogs are furry too. you can't just say that dogs are dirtier with no factual evidence what so ever. Your move good luck
Cats are better than dogs

Cats are better than dogs because cats are very furry and love fish. There is also a famous cat called Grumpy Cat who has at least above 1 million subscribers. Cats are also used in beauty contests and competitions to win medals. Many people keep cats for company and dogs always get dirty and never clean their selves up cats make sure they are all clean before jumping on the bed to snuggle next to you. I adore all cats and if you would like to get a cat then go to Paws n Claws right next to P an
Bf 4 better than Cod Ghots

Battlefield 4 is the better game for numerous reasons. The first one of these is that it is innovating while Call of Duty is constantly trying to catch up. We can see this from the vaulting mechanics in Ghosts. This was already in Battlefield 3. Also Call of Duty is the same game with slight variations. For example MW2 and MW3 had the same overpowered guns. Also Call of Duty's kill streaks are not balanced. When a person goes on a kill streak, they can use the kill streak to propel themselves to higher level kill streaks. Also battlefield 4 is the superior game when it comes to maps, with the bigger maps that have more destructible cover. Also the battlefield community is better and not filled with arguing 4 year olds.
Wierdman's Debate Tournament-The Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on the world

I accept this round and put forth the following counter-definitions Occupy Movement- The first Occupy protests to be widely cosidered Occupy Wall Street in New York City then Occupy San Francisco, both taking place on September 17, 2011. By October 9, Occupy protests had taken place or were ongoing in over 95 cities across 82 countries, and over 600 communities in the United States.As of November 26 the Meetup page "Occupy Together" listed 2,668 Occupy communities worldwide Occupy Wall Street Movement-Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on the american government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. Please notice the two different definitions I wish the affirmative good luck
Wierdman's Debate Tournament-The Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on the world

In today's debate I will be advocating that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will/has had an affect on our world. This debate is not about whether the movements are just but will it have a positive or negative affect. For clarity here are some definitions:affect-make a difference toworld-all of the people, societies, and institutions on the earthOccupy Wall Street Movement-movement by any individual advocating against social economic inequality that claims to support the movement or joins in on the actual marchesIn order to win the debate I as Pro must prove that the Occupy Wall Street Movement will most likely or has had an affect on anywhere in the world. Con must argue as to why it will not/why it has not.
royalpaladin is retarded

royalretard is proving her fvckin stupidity mean i have to educate you retards every day. likew e have cerebralretard who thinks tht childrape is ok,a nd we have manisgay who doesnt know how to actually be a fvckin athetist this boad needs some serious eucation and retards like rayaldipsh1t cant help you but i can i hav a bachelors degree and win every debate
From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death.

To be completely honest, I thought I was the one saying that Jews CAN enter heaven. .. well. .. here goes nothing! ------------ Refutation ------------ "Old Covenant - in the Christian Bible, Yahweh establishes the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) with the Israelites after he saved them from bondage in Egypt in the events of The Exodus. This covenant is God's eternal promise to people of Jewish belief that they shall be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Thus, from this Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith can enter heaven after death. " As said in the resolution, "From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death. " The keyword here would be, "from a christian standpoint". Of course from a non-devout standpoint, this is acceptable, after all, Jesus does forgive and forget according to the Bible. However, the resolution is from a Christian standpoint, and 1/2 sides isn't the whole standpoint. According to the devout side of Christianity, those who do not repent for what they believe in, will not be accepted into the Kingdom of God. And because devout Jews will not repent for what they believe in, it is quite simple the outcome would be denied entry to Heaven. Although my opponent might state "well what if they do repent, then they will go to heaven", I must disagree. The resolution specifically states "From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death. " Not if Jews Repent. So we must look at this as an unapologetic Jewish man/woman trying to get into heaven through the eyes of a Christian. And the fact of the matter is, because Jewish people do not believe in Jesus Christ, the messiah, and Christians do, it is quite simple, from a Christian standpoint, Jews will not enter heaven. Considering how I just basically fit my argument into a paragraph I will just refute the rest. "2) Judaism and Christianity - Christianity began as a sect within Judaism. One may argue that the Christian faith differs from the Jewish faith, but we cannot forget Judeo-Christian tradition and teachings. " Again, this resolution is from a Christian standpoint, not Judeo-Christian. From the Christian standpoint, the Jewish man cannot enter heaven due to his lack of faith in Jesus Christ. "3) Jesus was Jewish - Christians believe that Jesus Himself was a Jew. Also, Christians believe that Jesus sits at the right of the Father in heaven. Thus, it is simply illogical to believe that followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death; Jesus, a Jew, already resides there according to Christian doctrine. " This is true, however, the Jews do not believe him to be the Messiah, contradicting Christian ideals. Therefore, Jews are, again, not permitted to enter heaven. I await your next argument. Also, to see the basic construction of my argument see refutation 1. Thank you very much.
From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death.

Argumentation: 1) Old Covenant - in the Christian Bible, Yahweh establishes the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) with the Israelites after he saved them from bondage in Egypt in the events of The Exodus. This covenant is God's eternal promise to people of Jewish belief that they shall be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Thus, from this Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith can enter heaven after death. 2) Judaism and Christianity - Christianity began as a sect within Judaism. One may argue that the Christian faith differs from the Jewish faith, but we cannot forget Judeo-Christian tradition and teachings. 3) Jesus was Jewish - Christians believe that Jesus Himself was a Jew. Also, Christians believe that Jesus sits at the right of the Father in heaven. Thus, it is simply illogical to believe that followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death; Jesus, a Jew, already resides there according to Christian doctrine. That shall be it for now. Thank you.
From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death.

I negate the resolution, "From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death. " The "Christian standpoint" is the stance that believes in the Holy Bible of the Christian God and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. The "followers of the Jewish faith" simply refers to people that are religiously Jewish. The "heaven after death" is pretty self-explanatory. For this debate, we will assume that a "heaven" does exist after death, and it comes from the Christian perspective. Instead of arguing about specific wording, it is to be understood that the debate will focus on religious perspective and insight. This round is utilized for clarifications and any concerns that my opponent may have. I would prefer if my opponent uses this round to simply accept the debate and allows me to begin in Round Two. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death.

----- Refutation ----- "Jewish people have a special connection with God. All one has to do is repent to the Father and ask for forgiveness. Since Jews do this, it is logical that they will enter heaven. Before Jesus came to earth, do you think God would have denied Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc. from heaven simply because His son hadn't come yet? That's just nonsense. The way to heaven is repentance and faith in the Holy God." Im sorry to say that is is you who has the faulty argument. You cannot analyze your own resolution correctly. From a Christian standpoint is by far, the most important phrase in the resolution. From a Jewish standpoint, if you repent, welcome to heaven. From a Christian standpoint, Jews must repent and accept Jesus Christ s the messiah. For support, I turn to Tim LaHaye's book, "Left Behind". In this series, the apocalypse has happened and the rapture occurred. The only ones not to be raptured were the "non-believers". The significace is that they were considered those who did not accept Jesus Christ as the messiah. Tim LaHaye is also a pastor of Christian religion. Well known as well. Towards the end, many Jews repent, however God does not accept them mainly due to the fact of their non-belief of Jesus Christ. Accurate sources. Accurate apprehension of resolution. Opponent is null in this argument. "Lack of faith in Jesus Christ does not deny someone from heaven. Like I stated above, it is quite illogical for this to occur." Again, lack of understanding. "Once again, my opponent makes a faulty argument." I appreciate you poisoning the well. As you can see, my opponent has failed to grasp his own resolution. All of his points should technically be discarded, however that is up to the voter. When voting, please take into consideration the forfeit from Round 3. Please Vote PRO. I appreciate the Voter and SAC's time.
From a Christian standpoint, followers of the Jewish faith cannot enter heaven after death.

1) Jewish people have a special connection with God. All one has to do is repent to the Father and ask for forgiveness. Since Jews do this, it is logical that they will enter heaven. Before Jesus came to earth, do you think God would have denied Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc. from heaven simply because His son hadn't come yet? That's just nonsense. The way to heaven is repentance and faith in the Holy God. 2) Lack of faith in Jesus Christ does not deny someone from heaven. Like I stated above, it is quite illogical for this to occur. 3) Once again, my opponent makes a faulty argument. My opponent's arguments are quite faulty. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Education is the key to future success.

Education is the key to future success. First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. One of the most obvious reasons is because we need to acquire the basic math, language, and subject skills we use in everyday life. For example, math skills are imperative for a career, and for life. Cooking, shopping, driving, and many other everyday activities require math skills as well, regardless of your career choice. How much you learn also effects how much your earn. The more knowledge you have will help you get a better job. Education is especially important in this time in history. More people are getting educated yearly. Data reveals a rise in the amount of college degrees. Our generation needs to prosper and develop. What you can gain from education: 1. For a happy and stable life 2. Money 3. Equality 4. Makes you self dependent 5. Turns your dreams into reality 6. Makes the world a safer and more peaceful place 7. Makes you confident 8. Society 9. For economic growth of the nation 10. Saves you from being fooled/cheated I encourage you to visit https://www.linkedin.com... because it explains these points in depth. Thank you! Source(s): https://www.usnews.com... http://www.nytimes.com... https://www.verywell.com... https://www.linkedin.com...
Poseidon is more powerful than Hades.

This is a simple debate, meant to be interesting/entertaining. By more powerful, I mean that in a one on one match, no sea creatures or undead/harpies/three-headed dogs, Poseidon could defeat Hades. By more powerful, I do NOT mean that because Hades rules over the underworld and all of it's denizens, he can build up some sort of economic empire using the undead as workers. Nor do I mean that he can pool all the wisdom of the undead, thus amassing more knowledge than Poseidon and therefore being more powerful, at least according to the saying, "Knowledge is power". This a cage match. Brute power vs brute power. First round is meant to clear up any questions. Second and third round- argument/rebuttal. Feel free to come up with some cheap shot, like Hades using his invisibility cap or stealing Zeus's bolt and using it in the match. This is supposed to be fun!!! Maybe we can posit various scenarios, and the one with most winning scenarios wins? On a side-note, I was kind of inspired by the Suvudu Cage Matches. http://wp.suvudu.com...
Poseidon is more powerful than Hades.

Actually I am having fun don't mess with my bro Hades like that. He's brave he would use his own pithfork like thing and stab Posiden and win. Satan is complete evil Hades is just ruler of the underworld they are nothing alike. But to make it equal lets end really cool. YHWH's hand comes down and plucks all of them off the face of the earth. When I said Greek heaven I did mean mount olympus.
Poseidon is more powerful than Hades.

1. please don't get so upset over my comment.2. Posiden may have great power assuming this is on or in the sea power all depends on domain.3. Hades is not the Greco-Roman equivelant to the Judeo-christian Satan. For a scenario are we in Hades the Greek heaven or the sea or earthBut Hades could taunt posiden make him attack and turn invisible and stab him.