BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are only 2 genders (unrelated to sex)

I respect your opinion that there is a third gender for people for genders- but for the life of me I cannot find anything reputable about such a thing. If you are talking about intersex people- they generally are determined as female or male mentally before any surgeries take place (and are therefore not a gender). The only mental disorder that I can find regarding making someone think that they are not the gender that they are (or make them think that they are some sort of other gender) is gender dysphoria. I am referring to the mental illness that confuses someone of their gender. Also the "third gender" of non-binary or gender-fluid have yet to be scientifically established as actual things (from what I read). Besides that I've got no idea what you are referring to here. I'd be delighted to look into whatever videos or evidence you've got on the subject of a third gender. But I since I haven't found anything it is fine if you cannot find anything either. Good debate
There are only 2 genders (unrelated to sex)

Oh yeah, sorry I thought it meant something else, but what I'm getting at is that some people with dis-orders aren't simply male or female, so they made "Other". I don't agree with demi-male and 76% gay female, that is nonsense. I do think there are 3 genders. "Other" to put all the people with disorders in. You just failed to notice that. Everything you said in round 1 was pretty correct, and doesn't really contradict my point. I'm just saying there is a third gender, but only 3. Not 126 or some weird number.
There are only 2 genders (unrelated to sex)

Note: I get a lot of my sources from this video (a.k.a. the sources that the youtuber cites) First of all when I refer to gender I refer to basically someone's brain. The outside of someone and their genitalia do not change their gender nor do any outside forces (culture, etc.). We can notice similarities (mostly in grey and white matter levels) in the brains between women and transgender women (man to woman) and vice versa with men and transgender men. This can be seen before any hormone treatment has happened. This means that the gender of the person has something to do with the brain. If we follow these brain scans all the way to birth (not literally) we can see that for the most part this does not change and transgender people will show the brain of the opposite sex before they even know it. This data only shows a sort of on of switch between man and woman and doesn't show for any other "genders". This data also shows that gender cannot change or be affected by society or culture at all. Gender doesn't determine one's levels of femininity or masculinity either because tom-boys and girly boys will always exist and they will still remain female and male respectively. I'm not trying to be mean or anything-I ran into a few studies regarding this information and I thought it was interesting and it convinced me pretty well. Please give your opinion, arguments, or any other evidence to support a dissenting pov. Thanks
The death penalty should be allowed

This is my first debate so I am not as good as others but I must state that prison is a much better way of discipline than killing. You are taken away from your family, have to follow a strict regime and are in with a bunch of strangers. I am OK with that as at least you have a longer life and I think life is the most important thing in the world. Without life, you can't enjoy even the simplest of things. I agree that something must be take away from criminals, but life is too important to take away from anyone.
The death penalty should be allowed

I note that you have failed to establish that the death penalty is "wrong". I assume you are dropping that claim, which means you lose the debate. And no, the purpose of the death penalty is to punish capital criminals. And no, killing is not a crime;., murder is a crime, with murder being defined as the unlawful taking of human life. Surely, you do not believe killing animals for food is a "crime"? Nor do you believe that killing man to stop him from raping your wife would be a "crime". It is certainly not in the U.S. Capital punishment is just because God says so. And I am not trying to stop killing. I am trying to punish capital criminals. I have no problem with killing, especially cows and chickens. You will have to do better than that.
Alan Watts was a great Philosopher

Good day and Thank you for the debate. Alan Watts supposedly brought eastern ways of thought to the west how he did well my opponent doesn't say. His views did not get rid of the materialistic capitalist mentality of western civilization? why not my opponent does not say. How his message stands as guidance for those who want to wake up from the delusion of our culture well my opponent does not say nor does he say how and why Americans and their culture are a delusion. "I am not claiming that he is the best philosopher." wait hold on please remind me as to what the resolution is? and furthermore how does his views trump western philosophies. The Pro has the burden of proof he has not cited any sources nor has he proven any of his claims they are merely just that claims being made. For my opponent to win he must indefinitely and beyond reasonable doubt prove all of his claims which are 1. That Alan Watts is an important philosopher. 2. That Alan Watts brought eastern ways of thought to the west. 3. That his views don't or did not rather get rid of materialistic capitalist mentality in western civilization 4. That his message stands as guidance for those who are delusional Americans and then he must prove which Americans are delusional, for one cannot prove (differential) how many red beans there are in a bowl without first counting them. R1- My opponent claims that he is not claiming that Alan is not the best philosopher or that his philosophy is Utopian and yet he starts a debate with a resolution that say and I quote " Alan Watts is a GREAT philosopher" conclusion: My opponent has no case nor any arguments nor any references he contradicts himself and his "argument" of how Alan Watts is great is a logical Fallacy I believe the fallacy is called begs the question where a statement or claim that is made arises questions and not answers. Therefore the resolution is negated
Alan Watts was a great Philosopher

Alan Watts is a important philosopher because he brought the eastern ways of thought to the west. Though his views did not get rid of the materialistic capitalist mentality of western civilization his message stands as guidance for those of want to wake up from the delusion of are culture. I am not claiming that he is the best philosopher or his philosophy is Utopian, greater than all. I am simply pointing out that Alan Watts view of reality and human desires shows a better perspective of reality than that of the western philosophies and religions.
Alan Watts was a great Philosopher

Hitler was not a great philosopher he was an idiot you don't try to take over the world by attacking everyone at the same time you take over it by getting everyone to attack each other. The quote is actually very relevant to my argument while I am arguing that no one can be great it is simply a matter of opinion or belief and while you are debating that someone is great mainly alan watts because of your opinion you describe his philosophy as.... well that's just it you don't you also don't argue about much else. You go on and on about absolutely nothing. All my opponent has done is cling to an argument that he cannot litigate and also you don't refute any of my refutations made to your so called arguments. For the record I did join, you however don't have any idea how to make resolutions and you also don't seem to know how to argue. " his standards are the amount of people who follow philosophy" - opponent. Actually I prefer blonds. " My opponent that when debating Watts we should talk about his philosophy" "but this is completely relevant for the simple fact that he was a philosopher," hmmmm a contradiction. "he doesn't know who Alan Watt's was he assumes that he was not a great philosopher" - opponent I'm not assuming anything I'm saying that he isn't great and therefore by your argument if one believes someone is great then he is I believe that he isn't and therefore he isn't. conclusion: I extend all my refutations and assertions made
Alan Watts was a great Philosopher

Hitler was great philosopher because under my opponents own definition of "great" is how much influence and people follow a certain philosophy, regardless of how it describes reality and morality. The quote from is irrelevant to the debate. Further more my opponent has made no argument what so ever, all he has done is try to refute the same topic endlessly and because he doesn't know who Alan Watt's was he assumes that he was not a great philosopher because again his standards are the amount of people who follow a philosophy and how much influence in society. My opponent says that when debating Watts we should talk about his philosophy because the resolution is "Alan Watts was a great Philosopher" but this is completely relevant for the simple fact that he was a philosopher, it would have been irrelevant for me to talk about his love life, but the philosophy is relevant to this debate. In conclusion my opponent never even attempted to debate and join the debate with out knowing anything about it.
Alan Watts was a great Philosopher

great- of major significance or importance- Merriam Websters dictionary. Rintro- My opponent goes on and on about how this debate is subjective that we are debating a subjective topic but what is so subjective as to whether Alan Watts was a great philosopher or not the way I am debating fits perfectly to the resolution - Alan Watts was a great philosopher-. Let me remind you we are not debating philosophy we are not debating alan watts philosophy we are debating whether he was a great philosopher. So as to whether someone is great or not is neither subjective nor objective but merely one's opinion . Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.- Gandhi 1.R1- My opponent seems confused we are not debating philosophy we are debating as to Alan Watts is great or not. By the by one can equate importance to an idea. _ Differential- Lets say I have this idea this idea is really good in fact one can say it's great. The idea that I have is one about illegal immigration. My idea if put into action stops all illegal immigrants from crossing over can I not equate importance to this idea? _ Importance is placed on everything we as human beings prioritize almost everything we run our lives by deciding how is this important to my life? What will I get out of it? Lets say somebody has the idea of senior prom for senior citizens and somebody else has the idea to make a relay for life who's is more important or how about when somebody has the idea that he or she might give blood and somebody else has the idea to shoot someone whose is preferable whose is more important? Objective value is placed on almost everything in our lives so when you say an idea's "substance" cannot be ignored by equating importance ummm yes it can. 2.R2- Tell me if Alan Watts was so great how come the majority of Americans do not know who Watts is? This further proves how not Great Alan Watts is. 3.R3- First of all you must explain what his views are before you can make a claim as to whether his views didn't get rid of materialistic capitalist mentality in western civilization. 4.R4- Again you don't provide any evidence that Americans are delusional you don't say which Americans are delusional. My opponent then goes on a rant about how the world isn't fair and how Americans are evil and have this ginormous ego that they must get rid this is irrelevant to the debate the debate is whether or not Alan Watts was a great philosopher Conclusion:there are no arguments being made simply put my opponent has no case and yes the Pro always has the burden of proof that's a debate basic. Finally if my opponent cannot prove yes prove that Alan Watts was a great philosopher the only logical inference is that he is not or was not a great philosopher. The resolution is negated.
Dance is a Sport

No, of course not! I was just referring to the performing part not the competitive. People can say what they wish about how it not a sport but it fits the definition. And people have their opinions on what makes a sport better than the other it's an opinion not a fact. I'm leaving my opinion out of this. You guys can assume if I like dance or don't but I don't believe in arguing about. An opinion can't be wrong only a statement can. The statement here is Dance is a sport. Which is wrong but if the question was is competitive dance a sport than the answer would be yes of course! It fits the definition! Therefore it is. But that is not the question therefore no. I'm glad we're on the same page!
Dance is a Sport

Once again I would like to point out the competitive dance and dance are two different things its like comparing the Harlem Globetrotters and basketball. One puts on a show and the other fits the definition of a sport. Let me make this VERY clear, so you can't mistake what I'm saying or get offended over something I did not say, when I talk about dance I am NOT referring to competitive dance only dance. The definition of sport is:Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and engages in competition. So dance does not fit that definition at all (I'm once again not talking about competitive dance). It does not have rules and there's no competition. I'll explain more about what I talked about last time dice it wasn't very clear. So some people have compared plays to routines in dance. Routines stay the same all the time no one changes them in the middle of your performance (I'm not saying you don't have to practice I didn't say anything like that). In say soccer you practice plays but when it come to the game you have head to head competition. Two teams competing at once instead of one in the competitive dance. The other team changes what you do in say soccer. You have a play planned out but when it comes down to it the they change. The person challenges you quicker then you planned or the player you want to pass to us covered. So dance and say soccer don't require the same on the go thinking .
Dance is a Sport

I think you misunderstood what I said I didn't say there was no rules in competitive dance I said in dance. They're are two different things. Dance is not a sport but competitive dance is. It's like being in the nutcracker is not a sport but being in the competition is. I understand that competitive dance has rules I knew that but in say the ballet the nutcracker you perform so there's no rules. And I did not say AT ALL that you don't need to practice you do what I said is that the dance stays like same while in say hockey the plays change because someone on the other team changes that. No one changes you're dance that you compete against. You misunderstood what I meant. Competitive dance is a sport but dance is not. There's a difference in between the two and the question was is DANCE a sport. That's why my answer is what it is.
Dance is a Sport

Clearly you are not a Dancer and know nothing about Competitive dancing, So first you try to say that there is no rules to dance. Definitely a false statement if you go on any dance competition website you can see what the judges judge on and many pages of rules, like every flex toe is 5 points off and if you forget your dance you have 100 points taken off and so on there is like ten or more pages of these if you actually look. Also you tried to say that you don't need to practice we dancers spend 20 hours a week trying to make our dance perfect for competition or for a performance! We also have a personal trainer at my dance school who has trained some pro athletes and said we were just as fit as them.Thats why dance is totally a sport there no question about it
The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings

What troubles me right away is that you are saying that only "assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church" should be taxed, Yet why only the Catholic Church? This you are singling one group at, yet letting it be fine for any other religious group to so and not be taxed. Now when you say that "these institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population" are you saying that monks, nuns, and the priests provide no benefit for the surrounding population, yet they are the ones that run the churches that "provide a place of solace" that i'm guessing you were meaning as something that did provide to the surrounding population. Also are these not the people supporting every community they can, whether they are in the streets of Calcutta to the wealthier countries such as America, Britain, Norway,Canada,etc. Now when you tax them you are taking money away from a charity, and THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. Now you may say that they keep a lot of the money and spend on themselves, but i believe those times are changing! With Pope Francis taking the city bus to get around instead of the popemoblie, and many other actions against the luxury of the pope, and his subjects.
The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings

Rules: Round 1: Proposition of Argument Round 2: Elaborate Argument Round 3: Rebuttals/Revisions Round 4: Conclusion I would like to state the opinion that the real estate assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church, those which are not houses of worship directly open to the public, should be taxed as that they serve no real purpose and take up valuable real estate from the Nation. There are two reasons for this: The Catholic Church is an entity controlled by a foreign State: The Vatican. https://en.wikipedia.org... These institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population. Whereas a church may provide a place of solace, the monasteries and convents merely take up space and act as production factories for the Catholic Church's Money Machine (i.e. they produce wine, craft rosaries, and other such things). Look forward to debate.
Atheist Epistemology

Good sir: God declares "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." How does evolved pond scum rationally know reality from delusion? If the atheist is right that we are nothing but matter acted upon by time and chance in keeping with the laws of science that govern all material reality,, on what basis would an atheist claim to know anything or even that knowledge per se exists. Knowledge is not material, and thus, cannot be said to exist in a world composed only of the material.
Atheist Epistemology

I am not dismissing what you say without reason, but for the reason it is not rational, but a red herring or begging the question. Say something rational and I ill rebut it. And with your last paragraph, you contradict yourself and concede the debate. If everything has happened by the necessity of the physical laws, then you must show what physical law accounts for the non-material. This is not possible, by definition, for the physical law only deal with the material. Since the physical laws cannot account for the non-material, it does not exist. This means you do not have a mind, there is no such thing as knowledge and you certainly do no think. You are simply a machine that is acted upon by the physical laws. You are not an atheist because it is right and true but because the laws of physics acted on your body in such a way that caused you to be this way. Atheist epistemplogy destrous knowledge. Nice.
Atheist Epistemology

I am asking, because you as con are supposed to be rebutting what I am saying. This would be how you would do that in this case. You aren't allowed to dismiss what I say without reason (which is what you have only done so far). The point of what I said previously was that beliefs can be taken into account physically. While beliefs may take on new properties not present in the matter which leads to them, mental states are not ontologically different than something that can be reduced to matter and energy. So beliefs are not immaterial the way you are thinking of them. There is no mind separate from the brain and there exist no non-physical entities. An analogy can be made using a computer. The physical makeup of a computer is simply something making electronic changes. Yet when we are using a computer we see it making calculations or processing words. However, if we take away the lower level entities causing those electronic changes, there no longer is the ability to calculate. Similarly, all that we see physically in the brain is a bunch of physical, chemical events. Yet from our point of view we are thinking. If we take away those physical processes, the thinking ceases to exist. I ask you to think of an example of a mental process that a human can do that computer simply will never be able to do. This should be quite easy if cognitive functions require something immaterial. What is probably the strongest argument for an atheist (I will use materialist here) epistemology is its consistency with its etiology and ontology which flow from it. A naturalist's epistemology says that one should be skeptical of claims made without evidence or scientific methodology. This leads to the etiological belief that everything since the big bang has happened by the necessity of physical laws. Lastly, this means that ontologically all things which exist are identical to something that is totally physical (in our recent discussion, the mind). A worldview, which is dictated by its epistemology, can be judged by two main principles: (1) Its consistency and (2) Its explanatory power of known reality. So far naturalism has been able to do (2) far better than any other worldview, and it is entirely consistent with itself (1) as demonstrated above. The prediction (2) by naturalism in our current discussion concerning the mind is that it is a purely physical substance. The evidence points in this direction more and more each year as more studies show the indistinguishable link between mental states and the brain. They have found what affects our memory, speech, motor control, and even the causes of depression and love within a completely physical framework.
Atheist Epistemology

You can ask anything you want, in you own instigated debate. Here, you are defending the notion of the existence of atheist epistemology. And the issue is not by what mechanism do people generate beliefs. It is that atheism does not provide a rational foundation to claim beliefs exist. In other words, you begged the question. Show us how in keeping with your notion that all of reality is nothing but star dust subject to the laws of science can allow for the non-material and that you are not simply a determinist machine? Once you do that, prove that you have thoughts (which is not the same as brain activity). And then prove that you, as an atheist, can know anything. I cannot wait.