BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage

Some people confuse subjective with important, when it is anything but. Our very conceptions of right and wrong that guide our entire lives are entirely subjective. Subjective issues aren't just theoretical bus deciede much of what we do and how the world works.I feel this is a very easy debate for me to win because PRO has already effectively conceded.As PRO has laid out, the topic is "If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage" and the argument relies on three stages:1) [If] gender is subjective,2) then it cannot be applied practically,3) and therefore should be discarded for biological sex.Furthermore practical is defined (again by PRO) as "Practical - the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas".So the main point to takeaway from all this is that we are looking to see if gender being subjective results in some real world difference. Does it matter beyond ideology and theory? We don't care about whether gender being subjective is good or bad or you like or dislike it or are for are against it. All of that is irrelevent. To win my side of the debate I merely need to show that there is one practical difference if gender is subjective.This is of course immensely easy because PRO has already done it for me."A problem that would arise due to gender being subjective would be in athletic pursuits. If a 180 - 250 lbs. male identifies as a female and wants to compete in a sport in a female league, this presents a problem. This male will be generally be better in this sport and could possibly threaten the wellbeing of the females playing. This example could be presented vice versa and the one female would be in danger."Pro cites a practical application for gender being subjective. It isn't an application he agrees with, as he makes clear, but that's irrelevent because the topic is not about do you think it's a good idea or a positive idea or has good side-effects or bad side-effects. It is merely whether there is any practical usage. Pro has admitted there is such a difference, splitting atheletes in a different fashion to how we do currently, so he has conceded the argument.
If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage

My argument is as follows: 1) [If] gender is subjective, 2) then it cannot be applied practically, 3) and therefore should be discarded for biological sex. Assuming that gender is subjective to each individual's identification, it has no practical value. Why should anyone care if someone identifies as a male or female or bigender or agender or whatever? If I cannot apply this practically then there is no purpose for it. Take for example a medical appointment/examination. If I am to fill out a form asking my gender in order to know what genitals I have or what major hormones are in me ((Mainly testosterone for males, estrogen for females) (DifferenceBetween.com)). This is why gender fluidity is impractical in regards to the medical field. If there is a form that has to ask me what my gender is and then also asks me what genitals I have, why put gender in there anyway? It's just more confusing data that means nothing in regards to my health and well-being. Another example is in Law. If humans are equal under the law, what difference does it make if I am male, female, or other. If I am a human, I have human rights. There is no practical usage for gender in this field. A problem that would arise due to gender being subjective would be in athletic pursuits. If a 180 - 250 lbs. male identifies as a female and wants to compete in a sport in a female league, this presents a problem. This male will be generally be better in this sport and could possibly threaten the wellbeing of the females playing. This example could be presented vice versa and the one female would be in danger. In conclusion, assuming that gender is subjective and is not synonymous with sex, there is no practical usage for it in any substantial field of work and therefore is a useless identification for humans and should be disregarded for an objective standard of human identification that is, biological sex. Sources: "Difference Between Testosterone and Estrogen." DifferenceBetween.Com. January 25, 2014. < http://www.differencebetween.com... > Any medical textbook that includes human male and female hormones
If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage

A contentious issue today is gender identification. Many individuals no longer believe that gender is binary and is instead on a spectrum. If this is so, and gender is subjective to this or that person, then I propose that gender no longer has any practical usage and we should get rid of "gender" altogether and instead use only our biological sex to identify our human species, male and female. My opponent's goal in this debate is to prove that if gender is subjective, it still has practical usage. My goal in this debate will be to prove that if gender is subjective, then there is no practical usage and that we should return to the term "sex" to identify our human species. Terms: Sex - the fundamental distinction, found in most species of animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the individual and its chromosomes. Gender - Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. Practical - the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas Round 1 is for acceptance. 2 is for arguments. 3 and 4 are for rebuttals.
Disney will make Star Wars VII amazing

Forgive me! I had not realized my argument was due till it was too late! Lets start with J.J. here. He has worked on some amazing TV shows. But, as some will agree, he absolutely ruined the Star Trek movies. But only to those who knew what Star Trek was truly about. The newest generation has never really understood that made Star Trek so popular. Star Trek was about the social problems of the time, racism, depression, and government. The newest movies where action / suspense movies, not focused on the problems (mostly because you could shot) of today's world. And then he copies one the greatest classics of all time, The Wrath of Kahn. COME ON! The other guys I trust will make a good showing. Except Michael Arndt (I don't trust him, you can tell by watching TS3 [Toy Story Three]). My worries are that it will be a decent movie, like Episodes One and Two. Three just sucked... Never-mind. Three was just plain terrible.
Disney will make Star Wars VII amazing

I have full confidence in Disney that Star Wars VII will be a great addition to the Star Wars Universe. Many fans are skeptic about their ownership, and that skepticism was only pushed further with the disbandment of LucasArts in April. However, there is a fully qualified, legitimate team working on the movie. We have J.J. Abrams, who has worked on media such as Lost, Fringe, and the Star Trek movie reboot. We also have Lawrence Kasdan, who made the screenplay for Star Wars V and Star Wars VI, as well as Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Michael Arndt has also signed on; he has worked on films such as Brave, Catching Fire, and Toy Story 3. In addition to a wonderful production team, we also will have a great cast. With Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, AND Carrie Fisher returning, as well as Billy Dee Williams, Adam Driver, and Anthony Daniels, we will have experienced and talented actors at the forefront. George Lucas is being used as a creative consultant ONLY. Many people are afraid that Disney will butcher Star Wars because of the former's 'family-friendly' nature, but there is no reason to be fearful. Disney understands what the fans want to see and they will deliver a blockbuster hit, and a worthy title in the greatest movie series ever made. SOURCES: http://starwars.wikia.com... http://www.imdb.com...
Longer School Electives

My opponent has forfeited Round 2, so I would like to take advantage of this and emphasize the important points I have made. Pro's case is all about helping kids feel better, and relieving stress of school. However, in Round 1, I believe I did a good job of refuting this. First off, they made a spelling mistake that makes the argument hard to understand, so I can only assume what they meant. Secondly, to refute this, I stated that "there are many electives that do not make kids feel better, add stress to them, and require more work than a regular class. Some examples of these include pentathlon and debate." I believe that this is a solid refutation and will cause for my opponent's one and only argument to be discounted. Secondly, I pointed out a flaw in the topic; that school electives are already long. I have no idea why m opponent has forfeited, but I believe I have won this debate so far.
Longer School Electives

Pro yes, We should Have longer School Electives. They always make kids fell better and relieve stress of school. WE should have longer School electives. This should be an interesting debate! Well, to start off, I would like to point out the main flows in pro's first argument. They said that electives "always make kids fell better and relieve the stress of school". However, I disagree with him/her. The first reason for this is that this sentence that I quoted is grammatically incorrect and makes no sense as it is. How can somebody "fell better"? Assuming they meant "feel", I will continue to refute this. I also disagree because there are many electives that do not make kids feel better, add stress to them, and require more work than a regular class. Some examples of these include pentathlon and debate. Therefore, I reject my opponent's one and only argument. I would also like to point out a flaw in this topic. Longer electives? At the school I currently attend, electives take up normal class period, 42 minutes, and are everyday. Also, I believe at the school district I live in, electives take up a 45 minute class period, therefore this topic is flawed.
Science is the key/ Not Religion

The modern scientific approach to the natural world is a rich and fascinatingly correct one while attempting to make sense of the world around us. Science is created with a question, and then that question is researched and studied. After enough knowledge on the subject of the question, a hypothesis is created, which is rigorously tested many times for confirmation. After the tests have concluded, the results are reviewed and are published, even if it disagrees with the original question, under no bias. This is what is amazing about science! Results are reported and pier reviewed EVEN if they don't agree with that we have been questioning! Comparing the two side-by-side, it is obvious to me that the workings of science far outrank the workings of religion to explain our awe-some and wonderful Universe. "Science is a collaborative enterprise.. we remember those who pave the way, seeing for them, always." -Carl Sagan 1) http://www.google.com...
David Icke's view that the world is ruled by a secret group called "Illuminati" is false

I welcome GeoLaureate8 to this debate, and him in general to this website. I hope this turns out to be quite enjoying given it's unique nature ;) Unless I am mistaken, most members of Debate.org are new to these ideas that Geo has recently espoused upon entering this site. In general, his ideas align with David Icke's - an infamous British writer and public speaker who has developed this type of "New Age Conspiracism"[1]. To summarize it briefly, he basically believes that there is a secret group of elites in rule behind the many global powers of the world, and they conspire to eventually join the world into a "one world government", presumably to rule it with a fascist iron-fist. If my description of David Icke's and Geo's beliefs are wrong, then I ask of my opponent to feel free to correct me. So here I stand, allowing my opponent to have the first say. His burden is to prove that there is reasonable evidence of this conspiracy, while my burden is to dismantle his evidence and show that there isn't reasonable evidence, if hardly a shred to begin with. As stated, my opponent can have the first word: ---References--- 1. http://www.davidicke.com...
Human potential is the same for all

Firstly could you please speak in plain English. These cute one-liners aren't making any sense. If you do not exist, then you cannot have any potential. The world would have the potential. The universe had infinite potential until the big bang. Now everything is determined to go the way it will go. your second line doesn't make any sense. If you could rephrase it please. People have different levels of the power of thought. Their are limits to the hardware of your brain, and everyone's limits may be close to each others but they are never the same. The mentally handicapped, try as they might, cannot and will not be able to understand different concepts. And there is nothing they could do to change this. thought is a physical process occurring in the brain, and it varies for different people. You can't watch your thoughts. You can think about them, but in order to understand everything about your brain you would need to have a brain that is bigger than your brain. Because you would have to have 1 memory cell memorizing what each memory cell is memorizing, and memory cells to analyze those memory cells etc. What is the potential to be? You cannot simply be, you must be something. For example I am (form of to be) a human. Some people are better at living than other people. In order to say that we are all the same, you must have some criteria to judge the potential of a person.
Human potential is the same for all

Clearly not. Potential means the capacity to do something in the future. Although we all have minds they are not all the same, and some people could never comprehend say calculus. Also we don't have the same physical potential. If the only thing you value is that you perceive the world, then we still don't have the same potential because we will all die, some at different times. I don't buy all this talk about equality. It seems obvious to me that some people are better at living than other people. Also note I am a materialist, and am arguing from a materialist perception of the world.
Human potential is the same for all

We are the seer, the watcher able to perceive mankind. We are that which perceives all. Yes we as a species differ on a wide variety of physical, mental and genetic characteristics etc. but in all there is the seer. The 'soul' if you like, watching at the core as the body and setting it chose to live and mature with played out. Whether there is conscious awareness of the watcher of thoughts in our human mind varies dramatically just like the physical and external, as mental deviation may either have 'nature or nurture' at the source. Deviations however small will affect generalizing the capacity of the human mind. However minds thoughts are watched. This central energy and seer of all is a universal human quality. The observations we make and act upon all have the potential to impact and influence, other inner energy's or 'souls'. Even those with the mental abnormalities that occur within our species, are of great importance. To open new opportunities and teach better understanding for those souls perceiving the affects. We are rooted in a deep state beyond that which is perceived. Even thoughts are perceived. Who is the one observing? It is not you? Or do you believe you are that which you can perceive?
school block to many useful websites on the computers at the schools

If schools are blocking webpages they should be more selective on what they block for example any pornographic sites, gaming sites, social networking sites and any website where a student could buy or purchase something. There are too many useful resources out there for students to use, and schools should not be limiting that. In some cases schools have programs that can detect and record everything the student does on the computer down to how many times they touch the "A" key.
school block to many useful websites on the computers at the schools

Conclusion:Apparently, my opponent's case is founded on the assumption that filtering systems will block all good sites.However, this is false. I do not see how photos can be "off-limits", especially when there are plenty of photos of concentration camps or starving children. Access to google images, which allows you to search up images of the holocaust or starving children, are mostly available. My opponent also claims that obscene pictures can be "helpful" in learning - however there has to be a limit on what children can access on school. Looking up pictures of gruesome and bloody images are not neccessary to learn. Furthermore, my opponent drops my argument that adult patrons have the ability to disable filtering for a site if they deem it appropriate in the current circumstances. Also, my opponent argues that the schools should refine the firewalls and improve, but it is not the school who makes the filtering system, but a third party, who are probably constantly improving.
school block to many useful websites on the computers at the schools

The useful resources i previously talked about earlier could have very well been off-limit photos of concentration camps during ww2 or of a starving african tribe, or a picture of something that your studying in history and to may it may be considered obscene yet you still have to learn. Many photos that would make a very good point on a topic that could be as my a adversary stated very obscene in content. In the end my is not that the schools filter their computer (I think that is a good thing as many kids can't be trusted) but that the schools refine the firewalls to allow more material that could be considered to be educational to the student body in a hole. Source:http://media.rochester.k12.mi.us... see Pg 5 section 3 Also i have experienced this many a time as well as my fellow student body
school block to many useful websites on the computers at the schools

==Analysis of the "Resolution"==I doubt that the title of this debate is the actual resolution, because of the inherent disadvantage I would have. However I can formulate one based on what the instigator is trying to say. I think the topic concerns whether or not schools are currently justified in their internet filtering system. To win this debate, I have to prove that filtering systems protect and do more good than harm.==Argumentation==In most cases, internet filtering systems are used to protect the students themselves. CIPA (Child's Internet Protection Act) requires schools to use filtering systems in order to block out harmful content, obscenity, or sexually expletive material [1]. This directly disproves my opponent's claim that schools block "useful resources".The act also allows adult patrons in some cases to temporary disable filtering for a site [1]. I will finish my case/refutation laterSources:[1] http://www.ncsl.org...
Anything Can Be Funny

I made the debate with several goals in mind. I intended on discussing what makes things funny and why anything has the potential to be funny. I decided to preform this discussion in a debate fashion to see if anyone could find any holes in my theory. More importantly however, I wanted to see if anyone would say anything interesting. This debate could have been about allot of things (the potential of the human mind, Murphy's law ect). There was even an interesting conversation about space-time in the comments section, prompted by this topic! You see, those are the moments that should inspire people to have debates like this :DNot the pointless pursuit of "Winning. " That is why I was disappointed to find that my opponent began his argument with, "I do not accept to my opponent's definition of funny because it gives him an unfair advantage in the debate. "Consequently, we have spent this entire debate, debating about what we are actually debating about. Most of my points have been considered invalid by my opponent and vice versa because we are trying to prove two different, non-conflicting statements. Pro: "Anything has the potential to be funny"Con: "It is not highly possible (50%) that anything could make someone laugh because they find it amusing. "Because of this, our debate has proven to be pointless with very little productive discussion taking place. That is why, regardless of who "wins", we have both lost this debate in my eyes. That is all I have to say,Thank you
Anything Can Be Funny

The word "Can" has a very clear definition.My opponent is being ridiculous and unreasonable. His childlike stubbornness has taken this debate to the point where it is no longer fun for anyone. > My argument for why anything can be funny heavily depends on the word "can" meaning that something is possible. > My opponent's argument against the idea that anything can be funny heavily depends on the word "can" meaning that something is highly probable. My opponent has given three reasons for why he is justified in saying that the word "can" should mean "Highly Possibly is (50%+)."I will now address all three reasons... Reason one:"Can needs to be defined because can is often mistaken for being the same as the word 'is"Does the statement "Anything Is Funny" convey the same meaning as the statement "Anything Can Be Funny"? Of course it doesn't!Those two statements mean completely different things right? > "Is" has a very clear definition > "Can" has a very clear definition The word "Can" is not often mistaken for being the same as the word "is"Reason two:"it doesn't matter how many dictionaries agree with you and the fact that all of those dictionaries basically state the same thing implies dictionary bias. 3 dictionaries with the same definition. Suspicious?"The fact that I showed quotes from three different reputable dictionaries proves that I didn't use "dictionary bias."Reason three:"For this debate, a 50%+ is necessary because if you use your definition then it includes a 1% chance. That is clearly a definition in your favour of the resolution, making it easier for you to argue. A 50% chance indicates equality on both sides of the debate and that is why my definition should be viewed as superior to my opponent's and my definitions should be viewed as a truism for this debate."Changing the definition of the word "can" to mean "Highly Possibly is (50%+)" does not indicate equality on both sides of this debate: > If the word "can" is used to say that it is "possible for somebody/something to do something, or for something to happen" then the statement, "Anything Can Be Funny" must be a true statement and I have 100% won this debate. > If the word "can" is used to say that it is "highly probable for somebody/something to do something, or for something to happen" then the statement "Anything Can Be Funny" isn't a true statement and Con has 100% won this debate. Conclusion Because neither of us are willing to change our definitions of the word "can", it will be up to the voters to decide what the acceptable definition of the word "can" is: > If you think that the word "can" means that something is possible, you agree with Pro. > If you think that the word "can" means that something is highly probable, you agree with Con. Thank you,