BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A man can not become a real woman

To answer your question, yes I believe I'm a unicorn because it's fun and it makes me happy. But guess what? men and women are proven to exist so this is a different case. Men have become women before. And also the example you used with the voices, yeah, you may get them help. But if someone is in the wrong body, they know it from the beginning. Usually everyone around them notices too. Why do you insist on making gender just who you are and you can't change it? It's not like you were intentionally born in the wrong body, it's just if your trans, you feel uncomfortable with your body and you want to go to a more comfortable state. Gender should and is stated as who you feel you are. Men and women are just used so you're aware of their body, pronouns, etc. Your topic was not specified so I am going to fight that a man can become a real woman under circumstances of gender identification, therefore I just have to prove that your arguments don't matter under gender identification. You're getting gender and sex mixed up in your arguments. Sex is what you were when you were born and gender is how you identify now. If believe you are a women, then you're a women. If you believe you are a man, you are a man. To get back to the beginning struggle. If someone is truly trans, everyone can tell before their transition. My friend thought she was trans for a while but we all knew she wasn't and was doing it for attention. She even agreed and said she didn't know what she was getting into. If you ask me I have a big advantage because all I have to say is your facts don't matter since we're debating under gender identification and not if you can have the body of a woman. I am allowed to do this because you didn't specify your topic so thank you. That's all I have to say for now.
A man can not become a real woman

Introduction Let me start with a question. Just because you believe you're a unicorn, does that really make you a unicorn? If not then I would like an explanation as to why you would humor a man who believes he is a woman. If someone was telling you they heard voices in their head, you wouldn't humor them and say, yes you are hearing voices. Both the person hearing voices in their head and the man who believes he is a woman, are mentally ill. Please don't agree with them, help them. This argument is strengthened when you look at the suicide rates in the trans community. [1] 40% of transsexuals have attempted suicide. If this isn't a sign of mental illness then what is? My arguments -Men and women are biologically different. [2] Men are born with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, women have two copies of the X chromosome. This means that no matter how much a man mutilates himself, or how many hormones he pumps into his body, he can never have two x chromosomes. -The entire chromosome profile of a human being is included in every individual cell, meaning it's possible to identify gender by examining the DNA of even a single cell. This means if the skeleton of of a dead tranny man was found, the scientists who were analyzing the skeleton, would determine it to be male. Ultimately this means trans-men are simply mimic females, their biology remain set as male. -The chromosomes of all females contain information which develops a womb and allows them to create life. Some females have damaged wombs (possibly caused by a swift kick to the uterus) or faulty genetic information, but ultimately their chromosomes still attempted to form them as functioning, fertile females. trans-men have no such chromosomal information, therefore they can't be put in the same category as females without functioning wombs. Trans-men don't even have a uterus, this is unique to females. -Men typically have bones that are more dense. Men also have stronger joints and a denser muscle mass. This gives men an unfair advantage in the world of sports. This means if a transsexual is regarded as a real women, then they'd be allowed to compete against women. If they competed against females in the popular sport UFC, which is cage fighting, then the trans-man would have an unfair advantage and could, break her far more fragile face, with his far more powerful punch. The same unfair advantages would be seen in other sports such as, boxing, power-lifting and most other sports where denser muscle mass and stronger joints would provide an advantage. To conclude It is discrediting to females to say that all they are is a cock-less variant of men with some hormones circulating their body. I value women more than that. [1] http://www.pinknews.co.uk... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Fire Is Alive

The three points that my opponent has contested are excretion, respiration, and metabolism. They seem to believe that none of these apply to fire. I will attempt to prove that all of these do apply to fire, making it a living organism. Excretion: My opponent thinks that the definition of excretion does not apply to fire because fire does not metabolize. Merriam-Webster defines "metabolism" as the "chemical changes by which energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated". Since my opponent failed to provide a definition for metabolism, this is the definition we will use. Fire fits this definition because fire is created through the process of combustion, a chemical change; it burns fuel, providing energy; and it creates new material from what it burns, because the definition of a chemical change is a change that produces new material. Fire's method of metabolism may be unconventional, but it is still metabolism. (I would like to add that my opponent cited common knowledge for the definition of metabolism, and the common knowledge definition of metabolism is something like "burning fuel to make energy" which certainly applies to fire). Respiration: My opponent claims that fire cannot breathe because fire does not have an organ with the capacity for air. I believe that an organism does not need a "breathing organ" to respire- sponges and many other marine organisms get oxygen by filtering it. In a similar way, fire filters through the air, burning oxygen gas and leaving nitrogen and trace gases, such as neon, untouched. My opponent also claims that "If this were the case, anything with a chemical reaction involving air would be considered living because it can breathe." This is a logical fallacy. We have already established that to be alive, organisms need to fulfill a list of requirements, not just can/can't breathe. Therefore, even if chemical reactions involve air, they need to also reproduce, excrete waste, move, grow, etc. to be considered alive. Reproduction: The definition that my opponent is using for reproduction is both incorrect and straying from the original definition. At the beginning of the debate, my opponent defined reproduction as "the production of offspring by organized bodies". We agreed that was the definition. It is unfair to change the definition now to suit your needs. The new definition provided by my opponent is also incorrect. Reproduction does not occur solely in animals or plants- it also occurs with fungi. If we use the original, correct definition, fire fulfills the characteristic of reproduction. A side note: Both your facts and your logic need to be correct. I assume the audience will penalize correctly for logical fallacies. If you wish to change a definition, you must provide an explanation as to why the original definition is incorrect and why the new definition is better.
Fire Is Alive

I will prove that fire fulfills each of the characteristics required for an organism to be considered alive. First, movement. As we can see by referencing forest fires, fire can move quickly. Some people claim that for an organism to be alive, it needs to move with intention. Fire does move with intention- it moves towards areas that contain fuel, such as areas thick with trees and areas containing oxygen. Here is a video that shows evidence of a forest fire moving: Second, respiration. My opponent defined respiration as the "process of inhaling and exhaling gases from and into the external environment". The chemical reaction of combustion requires oxygen gas, and always produces a gas, such as carbon dioxide or water vapor. Fire does not need lungs to respire because living organisms such as plants do not have lungs. Each of their cells carries out respiration. Third, reproduction. This is the characteristic that is the most blurry in definition. Obviously, fire does not reproduce in the typical way, but it does reproduce. When an organism reproduces, it creates offspring. What are offspring? Smaller versions of the parent organism. When you light a candle with a match, you are, in effect, creating "offspring". When fires split off or create smaller fires, they are reproducing. Fourth, sensitivity. Sensitivity is the ability to detect changes in the surrounding environment. We cannot read the a fire's mind, so how do we know if it is sensitive? By seeing if it responds to external factors. When you provide a fire with more fuel, it expands. When you dump water on a fire, it steams and starts to go out. These reactions could only be possible if the fire was able to detect the change and act accordingly, meaning that it is sensitive. Fifth, growth. As shown in the clip of fire moving, fire grows. This is evident to anybody who has ever seen a fire. Sixth, excretion. Excretion is the production and discharge of waste. When a fire moves throughout a forest, it burns trees into blackened stumps. When the trees are fully burned, the fire stops burning them and moves away. Is this process not the creation and discharging of waste? Fire burning trees can be seen as similar to humans eating food- when the food has been consumed to full capacity, the human releases what it cannot use (in the case of the fire, the blackened stumps that contain no more fuel). Seventh, nutrition. Fires take in fuel according to what they need, which is materials that can burn. Much like humans, fires choose not to burn metal or nonflammable materials because they know it won't burn. I have proved that fire fulfills all the above characteristics required for an organism to be considered alive. Thus, fire should be seen as a living organism. I look forward to the response of my opponent.
Fire Is Alive

First I will provide definitions to some of the characteristics. Excretion- The process, act or function of discharging or ejecting waste product of metabolism, especially from the system of an organism. . http://www.biology-online.org...' Respiration- breathing, which is the process of inhaling and exhaling gases from and into the external environment " a function of the lungs and other structures with similar function (e. g. gills) . http://www.biology-online.org... Reproduction- The production of offspring by organized bodies . http://www.biology-online.org... Nutrition- Nutrition is the intake of food, considered in relation to the body"s dietary needs. . http://www.who.int... Now I will provide some observations. 1) For my opponent to prove fire is alive, they will have to prove that fire fulfills all the requirements my opponent listed. 2) I have to prove that fire doesn't fulfill one of the requirements for fire to not be considered alive. 3) We both have equal burdens of proofs. In this context, it would mean both of us have to prove our side, instead of one side proving and the other side refuting. Both of us are required proof. When we think of living organisms, we think of humans. I assume it is commonly accepted that humans are considered living. Therefore throughout this debate I will be referencing humans as a guideline. I look forward to this debate in pursuit of truth.
Fire Is Alive

I will be arguing that fire is alive. If you accept, your job is to argue that fire is not alive. There is no burden of proof- both sides have to prove their point equally. For the purposes of this debate, the characteristics something needs to be alive are movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion, and nutrition. For further definitions of these terms, see here: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz... First round is acceptance only, second round is arguments, third round is rebuttals. Please be respectful and polite. Looking forward to debating!
PCs are better than consoles

Since Con has forfeited the last round, I will state my second point. Value For Money - Consoles generally offer less performance per dollar as compared to PCs. For example, for $400, the price of a PS4, gamers can either buy a decent console-killing computer or buy parts to build an even better one (1) (2). While most $400 builds do not take the price of the operating system into account, keep in mind that a 64-bit operating system is equivalent to around 2 years of PS4 online membership. Keep in mind that the average gamer would usually keep hardware for more than 2 years, so even including the OS, PCs are still actually cheaper than consoles. This also applies to peripherals and games. A decent mouse/keyboard combo deal will be around $30, while a PS4 controller costs $50. Thanks to services like Steam, PC games are also cheaper. Many good PC games can be had for $20 on steam, while almost all console games cost upwards of $60. The claim of PC gaming being absurdly expensive is a misconception. In fact, with the addition of software/online passes, peripherals, and games, PC gaming can even be cheaper. Vote Pro. (1) - (2) - https://teksyndicate.com...
PCs are better than consoles

There are many high quality PC-exclusive games that should intrigue any player. Examples include Assetto Corsa, a racing sim, ARMA 3, a realistic first person shooter, and the upcoming Star Citizen, a crowd-funded sci-fi MMORPG. Many previously console-only games, such as Grand Theft Auto V, have since been ported to PC, while this is not usually true the other way around. In the small number of cases where PC games are ported to console, the results are not very good. Example: Minecraft. The console editions are severely lacking and are missing some aspects from the PC version.
PCs are better than consoles

I believe that PCs are superior to consoles. Anyone think otherwise? Format: First Round is acceptance only. Second round is for arguing your main point. Third round is for a rebuttal. Rules: 1.No forfeiting. 2.Keep it clean. No swearing or insults. 3.This is on which is a better car overall, not just on performance (although that can be used as a point). Good Luck!
The Christian God exists (4)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. I await my opponent's arguments.
Gay men should not be in charge of watching little boys.

Thats is like saying girls shouldnt watch little boys, because the like boys too. and most of the time little boys are watched by women, and just because they like male no one really cares, but gay people are a little different so everyone jumps the gun and says he was molesting that kid but he was pulling him out of a sewer hahahaha, Ummm teachers are generally girls yet you trust them with you boys and dont think they will do something to them so why should homosexual men be any different?
Gay men should not be in charge of watching little boys.

What would a grown man's motive be to volunteer to become a Scout leader, a soccer coach or a choirmaster? These types of posts are unpaid so the motive cannot be financial. It could well be that the man simply wants to pass on his skills to the younger generation, which is most commendable. However, in the case of a gay man, it could be that he enjoys the close company of boys because he is sexually attracted to them. Tragically, you don't have to look far to find stories about gay men abusing boys in their trust... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...... http://news.bbc.co.uk...... http://www.thesun.co.uk...... Of course, not all homosexual men are paedophiles, but neither are most straight men. Nevertheless, a heterosexual man would not be allowed to take a group of underage girls on a camping trip and it therefore follows that a homosexual man should not be allowed to take a group of underage boys camping. In view of this, I propose that applications from gay men for positions that involve the care or supervision of boys under the age of consent should be automatically rejected. Thank you.
Print ( Books, newspaper, novels) is a thing of the past.

Thank you very much for your final argument. I will now conclude the debate by rebutting your points, and finishing up with a conclusion, so lets begin shall we. You mean to tell me that I should go to Ireland, stand in line for an hour, and pay my admission, to look at a glass case, which inside sits 2 pages a day of the Book of Kells? http://www.tcd.ie... I really don't think so. I can download it and then read the book of kells (which is just one example of this sort of thing) a precious manuscript anywhere I want. My point of it being cheaper is that you do not buy your phone solely for the books, internet charges can easily be avoided as most people have unlimited internet or can go to a place with free wifi, and the electricity is already used to charge your phone anyways, it is a minimal increase. You do not need to have wifi at home, as you can simply download the book and then you have it anywhere offline. Basically the book is stored in the memory of your device and is then recalled at any time. Energy can be made to be renewable. Since your phone is already going to be recharged anyways, it is not a waste of electricity as you would be using it anyways. Since the electricity is already going to be used, your argument is invalid because it is less of an impact then tree cutting. My point of losing books is that the copy is gone forever. Using technology I can recover my copy and have it downloaded to my phone again, or I wouldn't lose the copy altogether, as it is stored digitally. I would ask why internet text is not permanent. If I type it and place it on a USB stick and multiple places, it will not disappear. If something is placed on the internet, it will be spread far and wide, until it cannot be lost as it is in too many places. You state that you can read a book faster. If I use a digital reader then it will allow me to have it read to my while driving, and other places. It allows me to read it faster in a way so that I can read it anywhere, and have it read to me. Technology is the evolution of print! Print is mortal! Technology is immortal! Thank you!
Print ( Books, newspaper, novels) is a thing of the past.

Thank you for your argument. You first said that manuscripts can be accessed on Internet which is better. Dear sir, they are called manuscripts for a good enough reason leading to them having only one copy. It makes them authentic and precious enough. Do you think a person will like reading the manuscript when it does not feel like one? I don't think so. You also mentioned that online copies are cheaper. If you would have noticed the recent trends, you would see that in fact they aren't. Coupled with Internet charges, use of electrical energy and your device itself, printed books are much much cheaper. You just need to go buy them. Everyone cannot have a WiFi connection at home because people aren't simply born with it. You also stated that 'It is simply not economically or environmentally viable to use paper copies.' and I will prove your statement factually incorrect. You are aware of the recent global climate fiasco. Printing has a one time carbon footprint. Digital media requires energy each time it is viewed. Printed material can be recycled and is less harmful than electronic devices. Digitals need to become more sustainable in nature. You also stated that once you lose a book, you can't find it in the library. Well, it isn't the only place where you get books. You have numerous shops, stands, helpful-lending friends who you can borrow it from. Books can never die. Internet text is not in any way permanent. An add that comes into cyberspace is lost in a short time, whereas if you get a tea stain on your book you will always remember how. Also, print seems so legitimate and credible. The fear we have of spams and viruses does not make us feel like clicking so many links but with books and newspapers, they do not come with a hazard warning. There is no danger with an add print. (Yay!) A study shows that people read digital screen text 20% " 30% slower than printed paper. People are involved in reading printed material more. Even after these so called 25 years you mentioned. Us fanatics have immortalized it well enough. And the biggest reason why print is an advantage is because you can reach it anywhere, any time. Even if you don't have a signal and the world has broken down you can still pick up the newspaper and know who has dumped who in Hollywood. Technology cannot stand without print. But print can stand without technology. Thank you.
Print ( Books, newspaper, novels) is a thing of the past.

Thank you for your wonderful speech. Before I move onto my speech, I will first refute and rebut a few points of my opponents. First off my apologies if you are part of the generation that didn't grow up with technology, but what I am stating is since the people growing up with technoligy as it is now have only begun to mature I the past few years, there is no concrete data about the effects of technology on the industry as the majority of the working population is still firmly ingrained in the past. I would like to point out that if used properly, screens do not take a tool on eyesight. Also if books are read in a dark background or with bright, or unsuited light, it can also cause eye damage. Millionaires are not really valued into this equation being as that if you are very rich, it also will mean that you are eccentric and can also afford to do what you like with your money. We do not NEED paper to make us feel alive. I feel just as alive typing this retort as I would writing it with pen and paper, and it takes me less time to type then it does to write. Just because two very good writers prefer pen and paper when they write does not mean it is good. Also their writings are not produced by hand, they are typed up and produced digitally. Now that I have refuted my opponents points I will move on to my constructive speech. First off books can only be read by one person at a time and only a certain amount of copies are printed. If I lose a library book, then that copy of the book is no longer at the library for others to read. You cannot take away a online copy of a document, given as there are many websites that will host it, and It can be directly downloaded to your computer. Also certain manuscripts, there are only one copy of, and only scholars can read. Using technoligy, anyone can read these manuscripts and never have to risk breaking it or ripping the pages. A book can be burnt, lost and waterlogged, although the same can be said for a phone, people are much more careful with their technoligy then they are with one copy of a book. Online copies of books are also cheaper, as it takes a lot less money to distribute and to obtain. This means that I can buy three books for the price of one paper book. Also the fact is that with a digital library, stores my purchases on the cloud. If I lose my phone, my purchases always come back to my next device. This shows that even if you lose your copy of the book you can re obtain it for no cost, unlike a paper copy. This is not to mention the environmental impacts of cutting hundreds of trees for one day's edition of a newspaper, that after being read once, gets left on a subway seat, or thrown away. It is simply not economically or environmentally viable to use paper copies. It is for these points that I believe as side Pro that this resolution must and will stand. Thank you, and I look forward to your argument.