BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is natural

Thanks,for challenge me to a debate.I accept your argument but now i will reasoned you, in opposition to your statement,why i think homosexual should be re-criminalize. Reason here following: 1.Homosexual has been genetically associate with pedophile,while in spite of the fact 88 % of pedophile has identified themselve as either homo or bi sexual orientation.According to some statistical data review,that homosexual are three times more likely than hetero in attempt child molestation and victimize multiple victims. In conclusion doesn't mean all gays are pedophile but, many are.That's mean LGBT groups are dangerous to our society that we should always be aware of. 2.Homosexual are to the main cause of widespread of aids which cost lost of millions lives 3. The bible condemn homosexual as abominable sinful act.
Homosexuality is natural

Homosexual and pedophilia are among the most hatred groups in the society.While especially in the middle east area,such as saudi arabia and iran,maximum punishment for homosexual and pedophilia is whipping and death penalty.Many people seemingly to have strong negative impression toward homosexual ,as they often think homosexual group collaborate with pedophilia in attempt to accomplish their need such as legitimize sexual relationship between adult and children which we often emphasis as child sexual abuse . This is why i think gays should not adopt children or same-sex marriage should not be legal because it's a bad reputation to our society. Back to 19th and 18th century LGBT rights has never been recognize by law.
Homosexuality is natural

What a surprise. I googled Kolarsky's study and the fee results seem to come from bias sources like conservapedia and resnse.com (rense.com seems to revolve around a famous conspiracy theorist, so this discredits cons evidence). That aside, what proof- scientific proof- does con have of the 'mental illness' of homosexuality? We know people with depression have a chemical imbalance, and we know people with APD have underdeveloped or damaged amygdalas; what, exactly, makes a brain a gay brain? There was political pressure for homosexuality to be declassified as a mental illness, that's true, but why does con think this is? It (DSM-1) was protested because there is no basis to suggest that being gay is a mental illness. Homosexuality is natural, thus why it was declassified as a mental illness.
Homosexuality is natural

And homosexual has been taken out from DSM-II in 1973 because of polital pressure and the influence of homosexual propaganda but not because scientific outline that point to the fact that homosexual is a sexual orientation.Nonetheless, an estimate about 3,810 of psychiatrist do not support declassified homosexual from mental illness.Some of psychiatrist even believe homosexual is a mental disorder and need a medial treatment.NOTE,homosexual and lesbian sex is socially taboo in many country around the world 57 out 100.While middle east country maximum penalty for homosexual can carry out death penalty.
Homosexuality is natural

According to the 2007 medical journal article entitled,,Neurological control of human sexual behavior.Insights from lesion studies which was published in the journal neurology,neurosurgery,and psychiatry. 'Kolarksy and colleagues 54 examined the relationship between ' sexual deviation'.age lesion onset and localisation of lesion (temporal v. extratemporal ). The authors defined two diagnostic categories : 1.) sexual deviation involving a deviation of sexual object (for example,Pedophilia,Homosexual) was included in this category,which would now be considered inappropriate, and 2.) sexual disturbances other than deviations including organism in response to stimuli unrelated to the subjects sexual preference,hypersexuality and hyposexuality. An association between temporal lobe abnormalities and pedophilia.homosexual has been reported by Mendez and his collegue See,'(http://www.conservapedia.com...) And ,sorry that i haven't provide you the source where the statistic come from.The statistic,that point to the fact 86 % pedophile describe themselves as homosexual and bi-sexual has been testify by on study,, Archives of Sexual Behavior from A study 1998 detailed Baldwin's report See',(http://www.rense.com...).
Homosexuality is natural

Again, con fails to provide sources. Con seems to disregard anything I posted in the previous round, suggesting they did not even read it. As a result, con is unable to refute my arguments that indicate homosexuality predates the Bible and the 3rd-gender argument raised in Round 2 by myself. Con also seems to reiterate the same (uncredited) 88% statistic. Without a link to this apparent study that cocluded that 88% of pedophiles are gay or bisexual, this statistic has no support, making it useless. As far as I know, con could have made up the 88% figure from nowhere. Secondly, I take great issue with the idea that 'a large majority of gay people are pedophiles'. This is quite clearly a misinterpretation of the 88% statistic, if such a statistic does in fact exist. The (possibly imaginary) study would conclude that 88% of pedophiles have gay/bi tendencies, NOT that 88% of gay/bi people are pedophiles. Con drops the AIDS argument, presumably because they have either decided to ignore my critique of their previous statement 'gay people spread AIDS'. If not, con may have simply forgotten to address my critique. Either way, they have not backed up their prior statement concerning the prominence of AIDS and homosexuality. Con puts a new point forward: homosexuality is a mental illness. Again, there is no url link to their evidence, only a name of the DSM-I as the title. I have no reason to believe such an organization even exists unless I am to leave the debate and research this myself. On further investigation (which I have gone out the realms of the debate to check cons statement concerning the DSM-I), it turns out that such a document DOES EXIST but CON HAS FAILED TO MENTION THAT LATER VERSIONS OF THE SAME DOCUMENT NO LONGER CATEGORIZE HOMOSEXUALITY AS A MENTAL DISORDER. In fact, DSM-1's authors (American Psychiatric Association) decided that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder as of 1974, in the 7th revision of DSM-II (which was the second edition of the DSM but was very similar to the original), in response to criticism from the LGBTQIA+ community that had deemed the AMA was 'the enemy', 'waging an execution of homosexuals' with no proof that homosexuality was an illness. This was backed up by sociologist Erving Goffman during the 1960s, who deemed the concept of mental illness a way of belittling and undermining non-conformists, including minorities like the homo/bisexual community. Even fellow psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, claimed "mental illness is a myth used to describe moral conflicts". Of course, Szasz's argument should be taken with a pinch of salt... This change to the document appears to be because the original DSM document was released in 1952. This also happens to be the only version con is referring to, so I can conclude that con's evidence for the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness is OUTDATED BY 64 YEARS. From this, it is evident that Con has deliberately used obsolete evidence to back up their belief that gay/bisexual people are mentally ill. All info on the controversy surrounding the DSM: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuality is natural

1.Okay,i will revise your argument due to there is something that need to be corrected.You said ,,there is little to no scientifically association between pedophile and homosexual',but the scientific academic has peer reviewed that among 88 % of pedophile are homo or bi-sexual.That doesn't mean all gays are child molester but the majority are. 2.Homosexual is a mental illness The DSM-I the first version of (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder) has classified homosexual as mental disorder,paraphilia,and sexual dysfunction.
Choice

C# is just as high level as Java as they are both object oriented languages. I never said Java can't be used for enterprise applications, just that it is not better than C# at enterprise applications. Both C# and Java are easy to learn compared to other programming languages. It could be argued that Java is slightly easier to learn but only because C# has more syntactic sugar to learn, but that same thing also makes C# more powerful. Also Java is not any faster than C# My opponent argued that my point was an opinion, but this is a debate on "which is better" and better is an opinion, so opinions do matter here. My opponent complained about me mostly citing Wikipedia, while he himself only cited 2 sources, one of which results in a "page not found". Although Java is currently more popular than C#, C# is quickly growing in popularity. [1] "But there are things Java can do that C# can"t as well." It would have been helpful if my opponent gave examples. [1] http://visualstudiomagazine.com...
Choice

My opponent said that Java isn't designed low level but it does work for low level. However, C# is only a medium level programming language and can't perform high level tasks easily. [1] Con said that Java can't be used for enterprise applications but I don't know why because enterprise applications are most commonly done with Java [1]. Java is much easier to learn than C# and it is more widely used. Saying that Java's swing API is "horrible" is an OPINION that you got from a blog! On top of that, half of your sources were wikipedia so how much of your argument is actually true? C# gives you few choices while when using Java you can use your own creativity. Yes, there are small, insignificant things that C# can do while Java can't. But there are things Java can do that C# can"t as well. Employers almost always require programmers to use Java(because it's better:)) and it is more frequently used. Java is faster than C# which is a huge plus. It is as fast or faster than ay other language because of Java's constant re-optimizing [1]. Google picked Java to use in all Android devices [2], one of the largest mobile phone platforms. Java is overall much more useful and works better than C#. Good debate con :) Vote Pro :) [1] http://www.cinnober.com... [2] http://radar.oreilly.com...
Choice

My opponent states that C# can't do low level, but Java is also a high level programming language, not designed for low level. "Examples of popular high-level programming languages today may include Java..." [2] C# can be used for enterprise applications just fine. [5] I don't see how Java outperforms it there. If my opponent wants to still claim that Java is better for enterprise applications, he needs to give sources to support it. Java's Swing API is horrible. [3] C# has delegates [4] and partial classes [6] while Java doesn't. C# has better generics than Java. Java generics are only known at compile time and are unknown at compile time, while C# generics are known at both compile time and runtime. [1] [1] http://tutorials.csharp-online.net... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://weblogs.java.net... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://msdn.microsoft.com...(v=vs.90).aspx [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Choice

I will take side A I personally use Java because C# is nothing special and it can't do low-level. Java is better than C# because Java serves better for Enterprise application than C#. Java has the virtual machine concept which C# does not. C# does have some good features but Java is so much easier to use and it performs better than C#. C# is mostly for Windows while Java is much more acessable and productive. While it's good to know both, Java is more common and better to know.
Choice

My opponent gets to pick absolutely any topic to debate. The catch: I get to pick which side of the debate to argue for, and my opponent will argue for the opposing side. In my opponent's first round he/she will post what the debate is and what side A and side B will argue for. My opponent can include details like definitions of terms and which side has burden of proof. For my second round I will state which side I will argue for and give my starting debate. After that the debate will continue normally. I recommend my opponent chooses a debate that he/she is knowledgeable in that he/she is able to argue both sides.
January/February LD Debate resolved

This Debate will be on the LD January/February resolved" It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence I will go Negative since I need practice This Debate will be in LD format. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Aff Case, Neg Case/Rebuttal Round 3: Aff Rebuttal, Neg Rebuttal Round 4: Aff Rebuttal, Neg Rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I look forward to my opponent (Whoever accepts) and I having a great Debate ^.^
January/February LD Debate resolved

Sigh it seems my opponent has forfeited once again. I don't want to extend any offense seeing as it would be extremely unfair since he hasn't had a chance to argue against it at all. Since it is also the last round I can't formulate any new extensions even if he does respond in time. I urge my opponent to also not extend any offense/don't refute his case and allow the voters to decide based on the rebuttal and original cases who should have won. This will maintain all Fairness in the round. :D
Santa Claus probably could not deliver presents to the U.S on Christmas

Yes, but I made it very clear in the second round that a debate resolution must be perfectly clear and cannot be changed halfway into the debate. My argument is relevant based on my opponent's opening resolution. It is not that I did not catch on to what my opponent argued in the second round; it is that I caught on to the fact that he was not arguing for what his debate resolution described. R1 says nothing about delivering presents to every house or a majority of houses in the U.S.My opponent points out that I still would need to prove that Santa probably or possibly could deliver presents. I did have a section devoted to this that my opponent did not address. I feel that I have met my burden of proof, especially considering that my opponent has not addressed any of my arguments. My argument was not entirely about my opponent changing the guidelines. I also provided evidence for my position in the argument.In conclusion, my opponent has dropped all my arguments. Merry Christmas to everyone as well. I'm probably going to get coal from Santa.
Santa Claus probably could not deliver presents to the U.S on Christmas

"I will simply be arguing that Santa Claus could deliver at least two gifts to somewhere in the U.S."I thought I made it pretty clear what I meant in the second round, as one of my arguments is based on the entire U.S. I am sorry if you did not catch on what I meant. But note that the title also says "probably," meaning you have to prove that Santa could deliver presents. May I point ou upon accepting this debate, you agreed with the title. I will go further to state that I am sorry about the guidelines of this debate. At first glance, it does look like it becomes in my favor. Honestly, it does. But this, I promise you, was unintentional. As for your latter argument, it is all about 'changing the guidelines.' Things in the second round were merely things I forgot to include in the first round. I am sorry for that.Since this is the third round and rebuttals can not go at a high rate, nor can arguments, I won't give you anything to rebut since it is the last round. Merry Christmas to you and to all!
Santa Claus probably could not deliver presents to the U.S on Christmas

This should be fun. Merry Christmas ahead of time.Just to state, by no helpers, I mean no helpers like Amazon Prime or Ebay or other sites like that. Also means no airplanes, just his sleigh and himself. Let's get started! Best of luck!Distance IssuesThe first problem we will be looking at is the distance issues. The myth of Santa origins in the North Pole. But Santa has to deliver it to all of U.S.A. Here's the problem: the first state is about 2,000 miles away [1]. That means it would take Santa 74 days at 27 miles an hour, the top recorded human speed set by Usain Bolt, to reach Alaska alone. Yes, he could leave in October, but he would have to say unseen, as no one has ever seen Santa before. But one big problem still remains. Even if he delivers the presents to Alaska, he still has to travel 1,000 miles over Canada to get the the rest of the U.S, not to mention Hawaii. That would take him 37 days. Considering he has just about a six hour time frame, it seems impossible. And then you gotta go to Hawaii...Number of HousesU.S.A is one of the biggest countries in terms of homes. With 300 million people, we have about 125 million homes [2]. It is a safe estimate to think he would have to travel to 50 million homes, which means in six hours, he has to travel to 50 million homes. For those of you who don't know, that is about 0.0006 seconds per house. That simply can not be achieved by human strengths. Sheer WEIGHT of presents:Aside from the distance problems that Santa can not possibly encounter, there are weight problems too. Since there are about 46 million children [3] in the U.S, that is 46 million on the sleigh. Even if each present just weighed an ounce, it would still mean 1,562 TONS of presents. And we all know that each present doesn't only weigh an ounce. The heaviest flying object (man made) is 760 tons [4]. Santa's is literally double that weight, without any jet engines. So as you can see, Santa could not possibly deliver all of those presents with human abilities. [1] http://www.timeanddate.com...[2] http://understandingthemarket.com...[3] http://understandingthemarket.com...[4] http://zappire.blogspot.com...
Santa Claus probably could not deliver presents to the U.S on Christmas

Santa Claus probably could not deliver presents to the U. S on Christmas WITH HUMAN ABILITIES. The U. S is the Uninted States. In this universe, this galaxy. Santa claus is the mythical creature who deliveres presents on Christmas. Christmas would be from 12 AM- 6 AM, probable, the time frame when Santa delivers the presents. He has no helpers. He can do anything a human could do, which means travel at up to 22 miles an hour. But he can fly. He is only in one universe, not parallel ones. He must not be seen. He must flying from the North Pole.
Viruses do exist.

We have all been fooled by the medical system. Viruses don't exist. Viruses are illogical and can't exist, purely on a logical step by step analysis of what viruses are and how they are supposed to work. Nobody has ever seen a virus. The ones you see on the internet are just computer generated fakes or they sometimes show pictures of hormones and try to tell us that they are viruses.1. How did the first person see a virus and know that it was a virus without having any reference material?Answer - They just made it up, hoping to get a Noble prize. That's how!
Viruses do exist.

Your evasiviness now continues to even higher levels. You are now changing the subject so to avoid the embarressment of having to address my previous statements. This is clear evidenve that you have conceded defeat and that in a last ditch effort you are trying to derail the debate into another subject. Well, its clear that you have lost the debate on whether viruses exist or not. Now you want me to demonstrate that quantum mechanics is a fraud also.The double split experiment.This experiment can to done using a needle and a one dollar laser light. Point a laser at a needle in a darkened room and the light from the laser will be split in the exact same manner as it is in the double split experiment. Thus, you don't need a "split" to create the interference pattern, all you need is an object that the light goes around. Thus, in the double split experiment, the centre dividing piece is all that is required. http://www.dailymotion.com...Here Bill Gaede demonstrates that the aether acts as a conductor of electromagnetic energy. His rope hypoyhosis is similar to my concept. The difference being - that my concept is far more logical and involves independent spinning particles of left and right spin which transfer light with both spin torque and wave energy simultaneously.
Viruses do exist.

You worked at an Electron Microscope? Then you may be aware with the concept of quantum mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org... The particle has different actions when unobserved. However, the particle exists, whether or not you can see it. I recommend any viewers to read this experiment. It is very handy article. No one can explain quantum mechanics, but it can be agreed that the particle exists as does the virus. Of course, you are probably familiar with all of this.
Viruses do exist.

It appears that you have totally ignored the second half of my last post. I will copy and paste it so you can try to reply to it this time without being so evasive, hopefuly. lol!In response to your last reply - Of course Koch abondoned his postulates. That's the point that I am trying to make. All Germ Theory related postulates will be found to be false because germs don't cause any disease. It's a bad diet and toxic chemicals that cause all disease. As Antoine Bechamp stated "Germs are the result of a disease, not the cause of it".Refer to leaky gut syndrome for further information.https://www.glutenfreesociety.org...Copy of last post which remains unanswered or addressed. Photographing a virus is physically impossible. Viruses are too small and can't be prepared for the electron microscope. In order to photograph something in an electron microscope you must isolate it first, then dry it out and eliminate all moisture. Then you cover the object is a thin layer of gold. If you can't see the object that you are intending to photograph, then this process is impossible. You can only photograph the surface of a relatively large object using an electron microscope. Thus, all the photographs that have been published of viruses are all frauds.Thus, photographing a virus is a physical impossibility. I know because I have worked in a Electron Microscope Lab as a photographer.Viruses are illogical entities because they have nowhere to go to when they are not infecting people. Please advise me of where viruses go to when they are not infecting people. I have never been able to work out where this secret hiding place is.The flu virus is a good example. Flu viruses appear randomly with no pattern what-so-ever. This is in violation of Germ Theory, which states that contagious agents should spread in concentric circles from the point of origin. The alternative to germ theory is that bad diet causes disease. This is far more logical and has plenty of evidence to support it. Ever since the beginning of the agricultural revolution humans have been dogged by constant disease. This is caused by agricultural products which are unsuitable to the human digestive system. These include grain, sugar,dairy and alcohol. These products cause inflammation, blockages, dysfunction, allegies, heart attack, stroke, arthritis, headaches, cancer and more. These products account for 98 % of all disease. The other 2% of disease is caused by dangerous chemicals. These may include - chlorine, bromine, fluorine, cadmium, lead, mercury and arsenic. Many of these chemicals can be found in pesticides, fungalcides, fire retardants, pool chemicals, plastics and food preservatives.