BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Transgender Issues regarding change of sex in the eyes of the law

I believe that one should have the right to change one's sex in official documents. There isn't a reason why people who have are transgendered shouldn't be able to have official documents that show who they really are, not who they were at birth. I only have one point for my argument, gender identity. When it comes down to it, this debate is ultimately determined by gender identity. Identity to use is important to all of us. With a sense of self, we wouldn't be able to determine who we are. Gender plays a big role in that. This is determined not just by how we feel, but how we are viewed by others. If a person feels a certain way and is constantly told they are not, then they basically assume that there is something wrong with them mentally when that simply is not the case. If a person identifies as a certain gender, then their official documents should reflect that. Now to address your arguments. To address your first argument about elitism, there are other ways to be a woman or a man other than just sex reassignment surgery. There is cross dressing and hormone replacement therapy are two examples. The only argument that you make is that people who want the right are elitist because they have to fork over huge amounts of cash, making it so that other people are left out. That doesn"t make sense because the only reason people want the right to do so is to be recognized the gender the feel that they are, not because they want to have a right that others don't. Simply put, your first point has no merit. As for you second argument, while sexual roles are a big issue due to societal pressures that try to conform people to a certain standard, that shouldn't matter in the argument. What you are implying is that men and women can have different roles in society, but because they want to be considered a different gender, you disagree because you state that it would perpetuate societal gender stereotypes. That would be true, if you ignore their gender identity. Would a girl who wants to play football be called a boy? If that girl identifies as a boy, then yes you would. That is what you ignore in this argument. And by allow transgender people to have the right to state their gender on a document won't change or impact how people view what men and women should look like. People have an idea of what the perfect man or the perfect woman looks like. It is determined by the eye of the beholder. Your final point baffles me. There isn't a good explanation to why scientific research would be harmed in your final argument. Both sexes have blood, organs, the same cells. If it were a scientific study on gender specific topics or genetics related to specific genders, it may pose a problem, but their blood would determine what sex they were orignally and they would be excluded from the study. As for other studies like on the health of the body, weight gain, strength, mental health, blood cells, etc. wouldn't be affected.
Should gay marriage be legal

Marriage has traditionally always been between a man and a woman. Why should we change tradition? Also nothing has changed within the church it is still meet to be with a man and a woman. Also with a same sex marriage you can not produce children together. With can in turn lead to some problems. Such as sperm donations to hospital give to same sex marriages. We should not have that happen. Also if gay marriages do happen and you some how do a kid, then they need both a dad and a mom, and with same sex marriages that just can not happen. On that final note I hope I have done a good debate if not please tell me and I will try to make my future debates better.
Should gay marriage be legal

Being gay is not wrong. You love who you love. When people say "God says that homosexuality is wrong, therefore gay marriage should not be legal." The U.S has no official religion, so why should what "God" says effect how we write our laws? It shouldn't, if we keep using this excuse, terrorist could say "I blew up McDonalds because my deities say that fast food is bad." Love is love. We shouldn't put restrictions on who you're allowed to live because of some people's religious beliefs.
"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

To begin with, we have a few claims that must be addressed. First off, I assume we're dealing with the "Judean-Christian" God considering you talked about creationists and the Bible. Therefore, we must understand what the Bible actually teaches about hell. Hell is not a "place", at least not in the same way as we experience matter and space in the universe. The reason the prophets in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in the New Testament describe hell as a "fiery furnace" where there will be "wailing and grinding of teeth" is because there is no other way to describe it. Some things are extremely hard to convey using words. You can describe all you want about how it felt to have your arm cut off, but unless they experienced the same exact thing in the same exact way, that person won't completely understand what it felt like. Also, God does not send you to hell if you disobey Him. By sinning, you are subconsciously saying that you don't love him, that you don't want to be with Him forever. If God is all-good, then why would He force you to be with Him in His presence for all eternity? That would be wrong and cruel, something God wouldn't do if He truly loves you. Secondly, in the excerpt from George Carlin, he states that "Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man. .. living in the sky. .. who watches everything you do. .. every minute of every day. .. ". This is flat out wrong. Now while I can't speak for other denominations of Christianity, I can say say that for myself, as a Catholic Christian, we do not believe that God is an actual man in the sky that watches you. God is a being, a supernatural entity that exists as existence itself. This may sound ridiculous at first but if you consider that there is such a thing as existence, then why can't that thing(existence) be a being? As Catholics we believe that God exists as existence itself and therefore exhibits other qualities that are inherent with Him by His very nature. God is all good, all powerful, eternal, all knowing, etc. He is all this because of His very nature. He is all-good by definition. Also keep in mind that the "acts" God does in the Old Testament are not necessarily literally true. The books of the Old Testament are not an account of history, and they are not supposed to be taken as literal. The point of the books is to tell a story to convey a message. Some of the stories are literally true, but certain parts are exaggerated to make a point about whatever is being explained. Take for example the book of Jonah. Jonah was not a real person, at least not to our knowledge, and his swallowing up by a large fish is not to be taken literally true. The point of the book is to teach people to trust in God and follow his plan. There is much more that I could get into but I'm just getting a good starting point, I'll discuss more in the following rounds.
"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

...Umm... I don't really know how to conclude this. I could respond to each of your ad hominem attacks but I think that's what you want me to do. I could respond to the text communication thing, but I think you want me to. It's hard not to, it's one of my few weaknesses. I hate not responding and proving it wrong but I know you just want a reaction. But I can't let you get the satisfaction that you want. So I won't respond. Anyways, thanks for the debate I guess. Good luck I suppose, and may the truth win.
"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

“Wow. I thought…” Ehhh. Zzzzzz… Stop right there. That’s your problem. You are totally incapable of thinking. No first you must have intelligence and an education on the subject at hand before you can have a debate in which case you clearly don’t. You fumble through everything. Your posturing is so batbrained ludicrous that nobody can take you seriously. If you were on the witness stand, how do you think you would do amongst your way way way way wayyyyyyyyyyy below average jury especially when you ask dunderhead questions and the answer is right there in front of your fricken face and you don’t even have the ability to do something as wide and as vast as “reading”? “You claim that text form of communication is the best form of communication and yet you provide no evidence for this claim.” See? That’s why my education and intelligence is so much greater than yours. That’s why I have graduated from college and why you are still stuck in high school with a high school edumacation. And with that stupid king lard greasy pinhead eggshell mind statement, there’s absolutely no way that you will ---ever--- get beyond high school. It is also solid proof as to why those that are religious have a lesser education that those who are not. Google it smarty who like to stalk people. Absolutely RD3 is claimed by me. Gee whatever gave an infidel like you the first clue from your zit cream which isn’t much of a weapon a clue? Awe does the poor wittle wost won thinks he’s responded to me? I haven’t even read what you’ve posted after your utter dismal completely fractured failure that you coughed upped with your only one question that I read from your RD2. So whatever with your scratch and sniff cardboard cutouts. See, that’s the problem with you and your kind, you think that you can get the best of me. But I’ve seen rubber stamps on your foreheads come and boy have I seen you go. And trust me little one, you will go. Oh and btw, who cares about this little debate? I don’t. You do. I’ll post it again. Or if I get kicked off because of my “conduct” big whoop which is just fine btw. Its NOT something I will lose sleep over. Whereas you WILL lose plenty of sleep over me. I’m the thorn in your side. My recomendations… GET A LIFE YOU FRICKEN TROLL and stop stalking me because I have reported you for ---every--- one of your votes. Now let’s see if something comes of it. Its so ridiculously easy to see just like so many on here why you have no genuine friends or loved ones. None. Now should I report you like you did me for YOUR stating something comepletly false because you do not have the ability to read? Because the evidence to support the claim that no god would use text form was posted you dimwitted dullard snot meat sow.
"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

Wow. I thought the point of debate was to prove your arguments. You claim that text form of communication is the best form of communication and yet you provide no evidence for this claim. Not only that, but then you go on to tell me that round 3 should be claimed for yourself. Wow. Well, no it shouldn't, I responded more than adequately to your rebuttal. I don't know what exactly you want. What evidence will you listen to if you won't even assume God exists for the sake of this argument? I get that you're an atheist, but for my evidence to work you must assume for the sake of this debate that God does exist. If you won't even accept that, then this whole debate is pointless. No matter what evidence I bring up that God is good, loving, ect. you will always fall back by saying "Well, God doesn't exists anyway". What must I do? You've asked me to disprove that something isn't this, but then say that that something doesn't even exist. Really? Come on.
"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

Since you shoed a showed of a 0% intelligence as well as is the same thing is true for a lack there of an edumacation, this round shall be rightly be claimed by myself. "First off, why do you assume that text form is the worst form of communication possible?" Now you figure it out and then get back to me should anything be left in that jigsaw scatterbrain lifeless goo you consider your hi karate tar pit lungs that you drag along with you should you have the nerve and the guts. And you blunder why I shouldn’t insult you when you flat out fricken deserve it? One can only hope for an intelligent debate. Nah. Not with christians as solidly proved by you.
People who buy hummers have small private parts.

No matter how the vote for the debate goes I've won a moral victory in that I sent you to google to search for images of Arnold Schwarzenegger in a speedo. At any rate, I do not find those images to be acceptable. In both cases, the speedo is dark and details regarding anything, especially a definitively size cannot be made out. Neither photograph meets my criteria of necessary conditions to create a definitive measurement. Its not just endowment, its more psychological than that. While it's speculating, there certainly is a trend. There's been no research done to definitively prove either stance bas off of proof, and your side has only offered a one time steroid enhanced athlete turned politician, and even then he is likely still compensating. Most people who become obsessed with weight lifting do so out of some former feelings of inferiority. I'm just going to ignore directly addressing the last statements, because it's all about perspective, and I don't want to have to release personal details.
People who buy hummers have small private parts.

Arnold Schwarzenegger may have peaked in the 70's but he didnt lose his physique completely later on. Have you seen Terminator 2 and 3? He was very well defined in both of them. He was driving his giant SUV during the making of these films as well. Yes he lost his physique recently, but hes still confident enough to wear a tiny little spedo. If you dont believe me check out this link http://www.popular-pics.com... Also notice his bulge is roughly the same size. Therefore, my example is very valid. You have argued well my friend but you have not given me any solid evidence to your assertion. It is dificult for you to argue that there is any correlation between people who drive hummers and penis size since all you are doing is speculating. People who drive hummers are more manly men and more manly men have bigger penises. People who dont drive hummers are girly men and have smaller penises.
People who buy hummers have small private parts.

Of course I speculate. It has never been a hobby or research of mine to track the size of a man's penis. However, I can discount the example which you are using. Arnold Schwarzenegger at the time of his Mr. Universe win, and those nude photographs was injecting himself with male growth hormones. It is a documented fact that steroid use causes the growth of the male member, while their testicles shrink in size due to the fact that they're not necessary for producing male hormones. The result of coming off of steroids is often a loss in muscle mass that is accelerated by the fact that the human body of the user has effectively slacked off on producing male hormones. So, not only would the temporary benefits like large muscles, but also penis tissue would significantly be reduced. Arnold Schwarzenegger became Mr. Universe in the late 1970s. He began driving the civilian version of the Army HUMVEE, which is not the SUV "Hummer" which is ridiculous and impractical, in the 1990s. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger began driving this large vehicle to compensate for an obvious loss of both muscle mass, and perhaps to deal with the insecurity of now having a smaller penis, and physique. So, to this I ask you, have you seen Arnold Schwarzenegger's penis lately? When it comes to creating a concrete statistic for the size of a man's penis, it should probably be established only at the fully erect state. The penis is an incredibly receptive organ. It is sensitive to temperature, humidity, and the overall homeostasis stasis of the host body as well as physical sensation and emotional delight or distress. Since size is largely dependent on blood flow, measurements should only be considered at the height of that blood flow to establish accuracy. So, we can't count Richard Gere's nude scene as conclusive evidence of overall penis size. Especially given that it is unlikely that the film could have been released if it featured a fully erect penis. That's just not tasteful. The insecurities that likely lead to someone purchasing a Prius are much different than those leading to someone who purchases a "Hummer." While someone who is not leading the most environmentally friendly life style might consider their Prius to be a way of excusing minimal effort in other parts of their life, or using it to lord some sort of intellectual superiority over other individuals, there are still plenty of good and logical reasons to own and operate a Prius. This requires much less denial, and much less emotionally based rationalization to drive a Prius because you can always defend it with a sound argument, such as "I get 60 miles to the gallon." Where as the Hummer? To believe you have a good reason to own it is not a belief based on reality.
People who buy hummers have small private parts.

That was a very intelligent response. I would argue though that somebodys insecurities would often drive them to be a prius driving snob. I do not mean to hate on the prius as I drive a camry hybrid myself. However, many people drive them for the wrong reasons. Often they feel insecure and want a way to feel superior over others. These people I would argue are just as likely to have small penises. Richard Gere for example is an environmental activist and general humanitarian. When he posed nude in a film he had a tiny penis. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the other hand drives a hummer and it is well documented that his penis is huge. I challenge you to cite other examples of people with hummers having small penises. Otherwise you are just speculating.
People who buy hummers have small private parts.

1.) Size is about perspective. A penis in a Geo-Metro looks larger than a penis in a Hummer. 2.) However, the statement that they're compensating isn't just about the actual size of a man's member. There are many other insecurities that individuals can develop. Many times with men, these can be linked to an overall physical size and strength, or perhaps some sort of mental or financial inadequacy, which they feel they can over come by over zealously projecting some "manly" trait. 3.) There is absolutely no good reason to drive a Hummer, the vehicle is unnecessary and is not the best option for many of the functions that people claim to own them for. The absence of a good, logical reason, causes one to have to assume an emotional reason. "I just like them." Is an emotional reason. It doesn't take Sigmund Freud to get down to it. What emotion could drive a person to purchase a large and expensive vehicle? Obviously some sort of feeling that they need people to perceive them as being both large and successful. Therefore they must not feel large and successful, which naturally translates into a lack of vitality, and in men this means a lack of endowment. 4.) Size is about perspective, it's cheaper and easier for a man with confidence that may also have a small penis to only be involved with women that have small hands, and not care about the size of his vehicle or how he is preceived by others.
There is no evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes

Perfect, you understood that I am talking about a common ancestor. Now, what you still have not understood, is that I am not looking for speculation on when we separated from the common ancestor, but scientific evidence that there was one in the first place. Looking forward to hearing from you on that specific issue, that this debate was started to discuss in the first place.I have been quite clear in the title and the opening statement what this debate is about. It still astounds me that you have not understood this. If you could provide a possible explanation for the misunderstanding, that would be perfect.
There is no evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of Hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years ago (Pliocene). Speciation from Pan to Homo appears to have been a long, drawn-out process. After the "original" divergence(s), there were, according to Patterson (2006), periods of hybridization between population groups and a process of alternating divergence and hybridization that lasted over several millions of years.[1] Sometime during the late Miocene or early Pliocene the earliest members of the human clade completed a final separation from the lineage of Pan " with dates estimated by several specialists ranging from 13 million[2] to as recent as 4 million years ago.[1] The latter date and the argument for hybridization events are rejected by Wakeley[3] (see current estimates regarding complex speciation). Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) " so much so that it should be classified as a member of the Pan genus and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior.[4] However, to date no fossil has been identified as a probable candidate for the CHLCA or the taxon Pan prior. In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup, that is, as the extant species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
There is no evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes

Here is the title that I have written: There is no evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes.Clearly, I have never said, or hinted, that apes turned into humans. I clearly and correctly presented the evolutionary theory. You, on the other hand, for some reason, completely failed to realize this, and spent a round attempting to educate me on the basics of evolutionary theory when everything I stated was perfectly correct and in line with the evolutionary viewpoint.