BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Hillary be a nominee for President

Well, here we are in the final round of a very interesting topic about Hillary Clinton being a nominee for the U.S. Presidency. Thanks to DS for initiating this discussion! Some of this debate may have been misunderstood. Neither DS nor myself would actually cast a vote for Hillary, except perhaps in some bizarre alternate universe. But what we are discussing is whether Hillary should be a nominee. She is Constitutionally eligible to be nominated by the Democratic Party as a prospective future President and she certainly has the qualifications to fill that role. My opponent, yet again, dodged my challenge. If he was going to "Hillary-bash" (and he has just cause to do so), he was supposed to provide another political candidate who has as much "statesman" experience as Hillary who was not also plagued by scandal. I'm actually a bit disappointed. I thought that he would have brought up someone like Paul Wellstone or Ronald Reagan, but never-mind. He did not take up the gauntlet and that is significant, indeed! DS argues that Ted Cruz has as much Constitutional eligibility as Hillary, but not so! He wrongly assumes that both of Cruz's parents were natural U.S. Citizens but Cruz's father was not "naturalized" until 2005 and not a natural U.S. Citizen since he was born in Cuba and even pledged allegiance to Fidel Castro's socialistic-fascistic cause. [1] DS continues to argue about Benghazi, but the evidence is clear: neither Bill nor Hillary thought that Obama's spin was believable. Of course, she didn't assume responsibility at the beginning. She was too busy trying to make Obama's story about Muslims being offended at a YouTube video of the Prophet Muhammed sound credible. Hey, that's a full-time job! Second, she should not take responsibility for having to "spin" the president's orders. Obama should take responsibility for that since he did not want to draw attention to any terrorism occurring while he was president. Honestly, DS should read Blood Feud for better information. Tomorrow, if only DS and myself had to vote and our only options were between Cruz and Hillary, I'm sure that we would both choose Cruz. Still, I hope that my honorable opponent would allow Hillary to become a nominee in the first place! If nothing else, I expect that DS recognizes the right of someone to run for the U.S. Presidency, even if he disagrees strongly with her campaign or her values. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should Hillary be a nominee for President

Thank you for your quickness in responding! I appreciate your eagerness to continue. The debate questionnaire is not questioning her eligibility to become president. Rather it is suggesting should she be a nominee. A nominee according to Freedictionary.com states a nominee is " one who has been nominated to an office" (1) So my question is regarding if Hillary given her standing scandals and awful past record should be the Democratic NOMINEE! My opponent seems to be fixated on the side that Hillary had no fault and had no play in Benghazi, which he must be ill informed because based off my prior sources only when she was questioned did she assume responsibility, not at the time of the actual incident. That does not show integrity, rather it shows sheepishness. Hillary 2016 is completely legit and no one has been arguing the integrity of the actual campaign, but rather the integrity of Hillary herself and if she should be who the democrats select as a nominee for the 2016 elections. Also I appreciate your talking of Ted Cruz, because he is eligible. His parents while in Canada at his birth were United States Citizens and therefore making him one and continuing his eligibility, and honestly do you really believe he would be spending all this time and money running if he wasn't eligible? Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Should Hillary be a nominee for President

Thanks again for the opportunity to engage one another's viewpoints on this topic. My opponent is performing a clever distraction. He still has not responded to my point that this debate is not about whether Hillary is electable in 2016. He is focusing on scandals and not on whether she is eligible for election as a nominee in 2016. Of course, she is a United States citizen and there is still debate about whether Senator Ted Cruz can legitimately run for U.S. President given that he was born in Canada. [1] Instead of focusing on the eligibility of someone like Ted Cruz, my opponent is fixated on someone like Hillary who is clearly a U.S. Citizen. His only argument against her is related to scandals. But I already addressed that point. I asked him what politician who has Hillary's level of political experience did not have some scandals. He has yet to answer that question. I am still waiting for him. He is clearly misguided about Benghazi. If Hillary was covering for Obama's mistake, as I pointed out previously, then she is not responsible for Benghazi. She and Bill didn't even find it believable that Obama would make up a story about a YouTube video depicting the prophet Mohammed as the cause of the Benghazi riots. My opponent then points to Hillary's debate with Rand Paul where she admits that she could have done more. This just goes to show that Hillary has integrity. If she was willing to admit that she made a mistake and could have done more, then she is showing character, unlike Obama who refused to admit he invented the "YouTube video" story when he was debating with Mitt Romney!! In summary, my opponent has obviously ill-defined the scope of this debate. If he wanted to debate whether Hillary would be electable as president, that would have been an entirely different debate. She can be a nominee to the U.S. Presidency simply because she is eligible for office. The sooner that my opponent realizes this fact, the better. [1] http://www.politifact.com...
Should Hillary be a nominee for President

My standing point on Benghazi is completely reliable. As the secretary of State she was not completely with no say on this tragedy. At three points were cables sent for more back up in Benghazi, which may I add she admitted to Rand Paul in a debate between the two.(1) She publicly admitted to have not done enough in the situation, so why has she not been removed of her post as SOS? Another point I may add is that my opponent has not touched yet on the email scandal that has evoked recent news. A presedential candidate with two scandals before the nominations? How can that lead to a good presidency and how willing are you to forgive her for betraying the trust of the United States citizens ? So Hillary '16? Sources: http://www.politifact.com...
Raising the minimum wage hurts the economy

Economy - A US national economy, resources, generally jobs and money. C1: Will raise teenage unemploymentMy government sources will be in a wayback machine link. The argument is simple, employers hire people and pay them what they are worth. If you are worth 1$, but they have to pay you 7$, they just wont pay you. This was proven in earlier wage hikes, especially amongst poorly skilled or under educated individuals, yes it actually hurts the people it is trying to help! [1] "When the minimum wage gets boosted, employers frequently cut down on hiring teens who typically fill lower-priority positions." [2]It's a simple argument to grasp, lets say someone is worth to the employer about 5$ an hour, got it? But if you have to pay them 7$ an hour, you are losing money off of this worker, then the employer is not likely to hire ou or keep you very long, this economic argument has been around for 100s of years. "According to U.S. Department of Labor figures, 20,000 workers lost their jobs following the 1996 minimum wage hike, while unemployment among black TEENAGE boys jumped from 37 to 41 percent." [3]Now lets look into current wages, has this long held theory held the ages? Has it begun to flip flop in modern times? No, it has not, I wish it did, I really want 100$ wages, but sadly that would kill the economy. If you look at the stats, the minimum wage hikes have done no good. [4]We must also ask, how much does the minimum wage actually effect them? Is it a major problem? Now, I am not denying the minimum wage's reason was be good, but if it actually fulfilled the reason is my question, and even if it did was it enough to prevent these possible and major downfalls? If the minimum wage had no downside, we would raise it to enormous rates, but even the most progressive thinker would be against such raises. Many academic studies show it actually decreased employment in all sectors, especially teenagers and minorities. The 2008 minimum wage raises destroyed teenage unemployment by about 160,000 jobs. [5I like graphs so: C2: Minorities Same logic as above, There is well documented evidence it hurts minorities. [6]C3: Raises pricesObvious, if you have to pay more on employees that have to make the stuff you have to raise ptices to compensate for the losses. [7]Vote a la pro (I will make longer arguments later) (one on prices and one on overall employment, sorry if that is inconvinient)[1] http://web.archive.org...[2] http://epionline.org...[3] http://www.mackinac.org...[4] http://online.wsj.com...[5] Adie, Douglas K. 2008 T "Did the Increase in Minimum Wage Cause Our Unemployment Rate to Rise?" . BALL STATE UNIVERSITY[6] http://web.archive.org... [7] http://blog.nj.com...
Raising the minimum wage hurts the economy

I DO NOT CONCEDE THE DEBATE, but it kept deleting my arguments and I only have an hour left. So, I FF this ONE round, conduct to my opponent. Voters, vote based on arguments not solely this FF. So provide both arguments. So to conclude, I will steal this quote from Jat who posted this in the comments:"In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result. " - Murray Rothbard.
Transgenderism is a mental illness

My opponent has forfeited the fifth, And final round. Before I continue with my closing arguments, I must correct a mistake I made in Round 4. When I made reference to psychiatrist Dr. David Kaiser, His statements were cited from Against Biologic Psychiatry not Against Biologic Chemistry. (The latter would make no sense. ) My apologies. Closing Arguments 1. My opponent asserted that transgenderism was a mental illness. When pressed to provide substance to his assertion of illness, A pathological condition which produces symptoms, He did not. 2. My opponent then tried to associate illness to transgenderism by referencing an unsubstantiated correlation between transgenderism and a 40% suicide rate. Not only did my opponent fail to convey how suicide was a symptom of illness, But his reference to the aforementioned correlation was incorrect. According to the source he referenced himself, There was a 41% attempted suicide rate that varied substantially when other factors were taken into account (i. E. Age, Sex, Race, Family relationships, Education, Workforce participation, Medical conditions, Disability, Etc. ) If transgenderism was isolated as the cause for suicide attempts, Then the results would be consistently reproducible even with the other factors considered. 3. My opponent attempted to veer the debate's focus from his assertion of illness to whether the beliefs of transgenders were verifiable. When I then asked if he was using belief, Its veracity notwithstanding, As a premise to argue illness, He attempted to shift the burden he bore to substantiate illness on to me to substantiate health. 4. In Round 4, I conveyed that the association of illness to mental misbehavior was a product of the 19th century neurolgist, Jean-Martin Charcot's attempt to prove hysteria was in fact a physical disease with a neuropathological basis. Despite being discredited, "mental illness" became a part of the the psychiatric lexicon. I also made references to statements by psychiatrists and psychologists observing their own industry which included Dr. Thomas Szasz, Dr. David Kaiser, And Dr. Tana Dineen. Not only has there yet to be any biochemical, Neurological, Pathological, Or genetic basis which inform these "mental illnesses, " but also these misbehaviors are catalogued and determined using a classification system, The DSM, Subjected to the arbitration of members of the American Psychiatric Association--the arbitration of which operates on the ad populum logical fallacy. My opponent failed to meet his onus and demonstrate that transgenderism was in fact an illness, Let alone a "mental" one. I've met my onus by demonstrating that transgenderism does not meet not only my offered description of illness but also his description. And I used, In part, His own citation in addition to my own. I'd like to thank my opponent for debating this subject with me, As well as the audience and commentators who participated. Vote well.
Transgenderism is a mental illness

The proof that a 60-year-old is not a 6 year old is that he/she lived for 60 years, Likewise, The proof that someone born a male will die a male is that he only has XY chromosomes except for a few X chromosomes (biology 101, 1905). Therefore, By defining a mental illness as a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning, It is clear that people who believe that they are the opposite sex classify as mentally ill given that 40% of trans people have attempted suicide and more than half were diagnosed with depression at some point in their lives (American foundation of suicide prevention, 2014).
Transgenderism is a mental illness

Rebuttal "The deviation from the standard which existed throughout human history and still occurring within all living creatures which have different genders requires you to prove that this deviation is healthy and acceptable. " No, I'm required to refute your assertion that Transgenderism is an illness. I don't have to prove health or acceptability. "But I would like to ask a question, If transgenderism is perfectly normal, Then what explains the stupidly high suicide rate of 40%? " Irrelevant. We are not discussing "normalcy. " We are discussing illness. Suicide is not a symptom of belief; suicide is a product of action, Just like homicide. "Also, If hopping from gender to another fine, Does that suggest that there are more than two genders? If yes, How many are there and are they created and legislated based on how people feel? " You are asking questions that have nothing to do with the subject. It is your onus to provide substance to your claim, "Transgenderism is a mental illness. " Now if this assertion is based on the premise, "believing in something, Which I allege to be factually incorrect, Makes one mentally ill, " then I stress you once more to answer the questions I've been asking since Round 1: What evidence do you have that these symptoms are connected to Transgenderism? Are the results of your/anyone's findings reproducible in each case? What are your controls?
Transgenderism is a mental illness

the deviation from the standard which existed throughout human history and still occurring within all living creatures which have different genders requires you to prove that this deviation is healthy and acceptable. But I would like to ask a question, If transgenderism is perfectly normal, Then what explains the stupidly high suicide rate of 40%? Which by the way, Doesn"t get significantly better after Sex reassignment surgery. Also, If hopping from gender to another fine, Does that suggest that there are more than two genders? If yes, How many are there and are they created and legislated based on how people feel?
Many gays were psychologically damaged and that's what made them gay in the first place

In conclusion, Con's entire argument is full of deceit, false claims and personal attacks. I quoted his claims and clearly the debunked every one of his claims. in around 1. The largest twin study CLEARLY shows that sexual abuse, childhood abuse and bad experiences with the opposite sex are some of of the causes of homosexuality in which means some people became gay as a result of trauma and abuse. All you have to do is download the study and read it to see that I'm correct. Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors [Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)] by Neil E. Whitehead8 No one in their right mind would believe sexual abuse, child abuse and bad experiences with the opposite sex never damages anyone in any way. Again, the study shows some gays became gay because they suffered trauma and abuse. The study researches the causes of homosexuality. All people who experienced trauma and abuse don't have mental disorders but they do cope and sometimes change their entire lifestyle to cope with what they've been through.
Many gays were psychologically damaged and that's what made them gay in the first place

What drivel. Pro rebutted an argument not made, probably because his position is so weak and ignorant that it is indefensible. Homosexuality, much like heterosexuality, is a psychological condition. Pro has claimed that it is caused by damage ergo he is claiming that being homosexual is a state of being damaged. If a psychological state is not a disorder, then calling it the state of being damaged is nonsense just like Pro's entire position. Additionally, the study Pro cites neither claims nor even suggests that abuse causes homosexuality. Pro is simply lying. Even if Pro could show that homosexuals tended to suffer abuse, he would be making an unjustified assumption about abuse causing homosexuality. The truth is that homosexuality leads to abuse by ignorant bigots like Pro and ignorant bigoted parents.
Many gays were psychologically damaged and that's what made them gay in the first place

"In Psychological terms, something must be a disorder for the term "damage" to even apply to the precipitating factors" Con starts off with DECEIT hoping I'm not educated enough to observe the DECEIT In many cases, psychological damage doesn't trigger mental disorders. It depends on many factors such as coping strategies, support system, individual traits, and even genetics. The damage may not cause a condition that meets the diagnostic criteria to qualify as a mental disorder. The damage individual may use a coping strategy that impacts the mental condition in which prevents the individual from meeting the diagnostic criteria to qualify as a mental disorder. Using con's logic, every single person who's ever been sexually abused, physically abused and emotionally abused ended up with a mental disorder. This is not true. Con's claim is simply false. Therefore, con's first paragraph is invalid. Common responses to trauma and coping strategies http://www.trauma-pages.com... "We do not call an orgasm the result of damage because this is something that is desirable" This is FALSE. Con's logic isn't rational because he fails to see that psychological damage often triggers a desire to behave a certain way. An example is, criminal psychologists investigate the upbringing of serial killers and in many cases, they discovered that childhood trauma influenced their desire to murder people. Many women who were sexually abused have the desire to prostitute. According to the largest, most reliable study on twins, sexual abuse, child abuse and bad experiences with the opposite sex have made people gay. Therefore, psychological damage have made many people gay. Con has failed to debunk my claim
Many gays were psychologically damaged and that's what made them gay in the first place

Damage implies that the result of the initiating cause is something that is problematic. In Psychological terms, something must be a disorder for the term "damage" to even apply to the precipitating factors. If you look in the current manual for psychological conditions, the DSM-5 you will not find homosexuality as a psychological disorder. This is because barring bigots like Pro, there is no damage or pain associated with being homosexual. Put another way, we call a bruise the result of damage because it is not desirable to have that change in your body. We do not call an orgasm the result of damage because this is something that is desirable. If people like Pro, who feel the need to denigrate people based on their sexuality, were to float off of the earth, there would no longer be any negativity associated with homosexuality. It would seem then that Pro is actually the damage and the solution is to eliminate pro by either convincing him that he is a bigoted jerk who should treat others with benevolence or by vaporizing him since he has made it a mission of his to hurt people he doesn't agree with for the simple fact that he disagrees with them. To counter a possible rebuttal, I suggested vaporizing Pro because he seeks to harm people, not because we disagree on the idea of homosexuality being acceptable. http://www.terapiacognitiva.eu...
Many gays were psychologically damaged and that's what made them gay in the first place

Round 1 Pro states claims Con challenges pro's claims Round 2 Pro disputes con's challenge from round 1 Con defends his or her challenge from round 1 Round 3 Conclusions Rules No new claims in rounds 2 and 3. Argument 1. Many gays hate for people to acknowledge the truth but the truth is, many gays are gay as a result of being damaged.. The largest and most reliable study on twins shows homosexuality is caused by mostly unique reactions to enironmental factors including but not limited to experimentation, peer pressure, gay pornography, bad experiences with the opposite sex, sexual abuse, childhood abuse, childhood gender nonconformity, biological randomness,ect. If you don't believe me, download the study for yourself Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors [Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)] by Neil E. Whitehead8
im more awesome dan u at evryfink!

I accept my argument's claim that he is indeed better than me at "everything". However, it can be immediately concluded that I have better skills with spelling than my opponent. His entire argument for the first round goes as: "i are godder den u at lost of finks. u suck cuz u r badder adn me! hahahahaha! u stink loser!" I would like to point out to my opponent that he is supposed to write: "I am better then you at lots of things. You suck because you are worse than me! Haha! You stink loser!" And the topic of the debate was: "im more awesome dan u at evryfink" Which can be translated into "I am better than you at everything". It is proven that I am better than my opponent in spelling. Since the resolution of pro goes that he is better than me at "evryfink (everything)", I have automatically won this debate. Unless he can prove that his spelling is somehow better than mine?... On to Pro to make your argument for the second round .