BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are Only Two Genders

I am not, Even in the slightest, Suggesting that someone born intersex is "doesn't have a gender". I'm saying that someone born intersex is simply a result of defective development at some point in the prenatal process. As per their sex, They will still have either predominantly Male or predominantly female makeup, Thus how doctors determine their labeled sex in these very rare one-off scenarios. If we were to create individual sexes for every minuscule fractional mixture of the defects in the birthing process, There would have to be literally millions of classes of sex. However, If we were to assign classes for every defective mixture of the two sexes, It would be an impossibility to assign sex at all whatsoever period, Because it would then start coming down to an infinite number of male vs female fractions of however far you desire to narrow it down to. That is the exact point of the debate: that you can only be male or female, And why I'm so baffled by the assertion that "you can be dozens of other sexes/genders". You are also correct in the assessment of the very minuscule portion of the population that an intersex defect occurs in. Which, Is obviously a debate and argument all in its own (ie- should labels and society be upended and redefined over a minuscule fraction of society as a whole, Or etc. . ) If you're arguing definitions, Then it only comes down to how badly one wishes to mince words or how semantic they want to be about the interpretation of a word. Hence, Why I use the actual definitions of words as they're written in plain understanding (ie-without having to go to great lengths to bend meanings and etc, Or without having to try and use my own definition by saying I don't agree with a definition or whatnot). But, At the end of the day, Even intersex people have a gender/sex that is either male or female once testing occurs to see what it is that they truly have going on under tyre surface of just a quick visual look of "oh, Try have both organs" or etc. They have either predominantly Male or predominantly female internal workings at the biological level, Which is when they are usually assigned their gender (unless the parents decide otherwise or whatnot, As I'm referring to common medical standards here, Not the "1 in a billion chance" standards. Because if we defined things, Literally ANYTHING, Based on every possible outcome, Defect, And scenario, Then NOTHING would have a real definition whatsoever. )
There are Only Two Genders

So are you saying that people born with two sets of non-functional sexual organs do not have a gender? Just because this group can not reproduce does not necessarily mean that these people have no gender. By the way, Whats the point of this debate if you define gender as "the state of being male OR female". This would per definition mean that there are only two genders, So there would be no counter argument possible. I think however that this definition is flawed as it would leave certain intersex people genderless. On the other hand you could argue that this doesn't matter too much since it only affects an extremely small part of the population.
There are Only Two Genders

What about intersex people? "Intersex people are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, Gonads, Sex hormones, Or genitals that, According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, And combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female. " - Wikipedia So what if people are born with genital ambiguity or even other sexual phenotype than XX or XY? These are of course very rare scenarios but they would still proof that there aren't only two genders.
There are Only Two Genders

I believe there are only two genders, Scientifically speaking. Yes, I'm aware that Sociology (which isn't very scientific in and of itself) believes there are multiple meanings based on social constructs. But, With "expectations of how a sex should act socially" aside, I firmly believe that there are only two genders. Mental health issues, Involving gender dysphoric individuals, Transgender, And sexually confused individuals, Are prevent and diagnosed at a much higher rate than that of sexually certain individuals. Thus, I feel that it is glaringly irresponsible to try and deny that there is not any psychological issue(s) of sorts, That are at play and at hand when talking about the gender dysphoric or transgender class. Not to mention the highly escalated rate of suicide that this particular class exhibits. I am not convinced that "it's everyone else in society that's got it wrong", And that it's the very tiny minority gender dysphoric class that the entire rest of society needs to conform to championing and propping up as if it is a completely normal function of the human psyche. I do agree that society should not go out of their way to demonize, Harm, Or degrade this class of individuals. But, I also feel that this class needs to become comfortable with the fact that there are two genders, And that if they feel like the other (behavioral or social-wise) then that is fine and acceptable to do so, So long as they are truthful and realistically ware with themselves that they are still, At their core, The boy/girl that they were form as. Ie- a boy that likes girl things, Loves dressing like girls, And likes feminine things, Is still a boy nonetheless. There is nothing wrong with that. But, The moment that boy tries to delude down to the fact that "HE" is a "SHE", They're being dishonest with themselves physically, Even if emotionally or psychologically that is how they feel inside. Change my mind, Because this is a fascinating topic to me. But, As of now, I just cannot get behind the notion that you can claim to "be whatever you want to be, Just because your mind makes you think you're 'that' is at the time" and it then it is supposed to become treated as if that belief is biological fact. This, To me, Would be akin to enabling delusions. Note: This is of the assumption we're talking about the literal definition of what Gender means: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)". Source: Dictionary
Ten (10) + Four (4) = Two (2)

Thank you for posting this debate :) Ok let me get out my pencil and paper. 10 +4 ____ 14 Well, it would seem that 10 + 4 = 14. Besides, since you're the instigator and pro for the resolution you have the burden of proof. "Prove me wrong :P" Well first prove yourself right. :) Thank you
s.C.H.I.P.

It seems as if "s.C.H.I.P." is supposed to stand for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. http://en.wikipedia.org... I am assuming that my opponent is to argue in favor of the SCHIP, while I am to argue against it. http://article.nationalreview.com... "[Researchers] find no evidence that SCHIP actually improves health outcomes, or that the program addresses the systemic quality problems that confront even insured children.... "SCHIP's great expense stems from the fact that in many cases, it simply enrolls children who were already insured privately. Economists Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon estimate that out of every ten children added to the SCHIP rolls, six already had private coverage. Only in government is a program deemed to 'work' when it covers four uninsured children for the price of ten.... "About SCHIP specifically, they write, 'It is remarkable that there is so little empirical evidence to support so large an expenditure.' "Economists Helen Levy and David Meltzer write that there is "no evidence" that SCHIP and similar programs are a cost-effective way of improving children's health.... "It's not even clear that SCHIP's method for improving children's health—expanding insurance coverage—is the right one. The New England Journal of Medicine reports large gaps between the quality of care children receive and what they should receive, even if the children have insurance.... "One thing SCHIP does accomplish is to discourage work.... [What a great accomplishment! Note: this is sarcasm.] "Since income is an important determinant of health outcomes, expanding SCHIP could actually harm many children's health.... "The one positive thing that can be said of SCHIP is that, for all the inefficiencies and perverse incentives it creates, it does insure some children who wouldn't have had coverage otherwise. But oddly enough, eliminating SCHIP could have this effect to an even greater degree. "If President Obama wants to cover more uninsured children, he should set ideology aside and repeal SCHIP. After all, you can't argue with what works." There you have it, straight from the mouth of Michael F. Cannon, "Cato Institute's director of health policy studies." http://www.cato.org... In conclusion, SCHIP does more harm than good. It wastes American resources, discourages work, and actually harms children's health.
Abortion Should be Illegal

To say there is such thing as an unwanted child, and their life can be terminated without their consent is the height of immorality. You cannot justify abortion, then cringe at the though of Spartans leaving babies out in the winters night to determine whether or not they were fit to be future worriers. I believe we as a society must give a voice to the voiceless, and give unborn children the right to experience the life you and I often take for granted. Less than one percent of abortions are done because of rape, which is the Lefts justification for all abortions that have taken place since Roe v. Wade. The moral obligation the Left claims we have to those who are in unfavorable situations, should extend to unborn children, when it comes to their right to life. There may be justification for Capital punishment against rapists, and murderers, but for a child to be subject to that punishment for no reason other than a mother who has made a mistake, is where the line should be drawn.
The Lion King is better than Frozen

Have fun in Scotland! I said in the beginning,"All Lion King has is songs about life and jungle cats." Then you responded with "sighs and wonders if has actually seen the Lion King." Well, in your music, you said "many song in the Lion King are also lyrical beautiful, such as the Circle of Life." Music: Why does it matter that Frozen never had a villain song? First of all, in the movie, you don't figure out who the actual villain is until the end of the movie! (sighs and wonders if has actually seen Frozen.) Every single song of Frozen had an inspiration to all who watched the movie. Let it go: This song is hands down the best Disney song ever. The song can be related to anyone of this era. It reaches people to not hold things in, but to "let it go." Also, it's about girl power. Queen Elsa and Princess Anna fall into the category of do-it-yourself, not-your-mother"s princesses. And even after Elsa accidentally hurts Anna during their reunion, Anna sacrifices herself to save Elsa. Because sisterhood.Nowhere can this be found in Lion King. Last, it shows to be true to yourself. "Don"t let them in, don"t let them see Be the good girl you always have to be Conceal, don"t feel, don"t let them know "" When Elsa runs off, kids see a young woman shake of her fear and shame. Then, not to mention transforming into the independent Ice Queen that she is, that's incredibly powerful. http://www.youtube.com... Also, Frozen has tons of other inspirational songs. For example, Do You Want to Build a Snowman. One of the best Disney songs (behind Let It Go) its catchy and has a lot of foreshadowing techniques. http://www.youtube.com... Last is, In Summer. In it, Olaf says "Winter's a good time to stay in and cuddle,But put me in summer and I'll be a " happy snowman!" We were all expecting puddle! http://www.youtube.com...
The Lion King is better than Frozen

Here is a brief plot of Frozen: Anna and side kicks Kristoff, Sven, and Olaf go to find her sister Elsa, whose icy powers have trapped their kingdom in eternal winter. Elsa's countless attempts of concealing her powers, but fails and releases "the monster everyone fears she is." (Sort of quote from Hans.) You said that " Hans was the best Disney villain of all time, uh".no. Scar is so evil." Uh.. no if anything, Hans was the best Disney villain. Name me any Disney movie where the prince comes across loving, sweet, and kind, but turns into a villain that everyone hates. i'll answer my question.. That movie is Frozen. Not to mention, he even tries to kill off Anna,the second in line of the throne! "better villain as Hans failed to fulfil his plot," how exactly did he fail? His plan was to be king, it would have worked until Anna was unfrozen by true love. In conclusion, Frozen had a way better plot then Lion King. It taught girls to "Let it go," and to have self confidence in themselves. Quoting that song "and I don't care what they're going to say"." All Lion King has is songs about life and jungle cats. Frozen is one the best Disney movie ever, because it does not go along the line of that typical Disney movie like Lion King.
Smoking age

I look forward to it. Since Pro never detailed an order of events, I'll take the opportunity to provide my case in this round. But before I do that, I believe definitions are in order. Smoking age refers to some age by which those under it, when caught smoking I suppose, are subject either to fine or some other punishment by the government. England I'm assuming either refers to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom as a whole. No matter though as my argument is conceptual, not specific to any time or place. Contention 1. Arbitrariness. The very concept of an age where on one side you may do something and on the other you may not is generally arbitrary owing to the fact that what is true of one sixteen year old may not be true of another. Whether a sixteen year old is mature or not is wholly a matter of fact, not at all contained or necessitated by age. Consider Keith who is sixteen and cannot be trusted to smoke because he's irresponsible. Now consider Brennan who is as responsible as they come and capable of weighing the cons and pros of smoking honestly. The only thing connecting these two people is the year they were born, not any other relevant factors such as maturity or responsibility. Contention 2. Self-ownership. People are generally considered to be the proper and sole owners of their own body. This was one of the main arguments against slavery and it explains out common sense belief that walking up to someone and punching them in the nose should be disallowed. However, on a more philosophical note, self ownership is a conceptual presupposition to the very act of rational argumentation and discussion. Consider that in order to even argue that we don't own ourselves, one has to presuppose that very ownership in freely controlling his own body. Pro is in free control of his body when he writes his case, but since his case denies the necessary presupposition to even writing it, he engages in performative contradiction (meaning the conceptual nature of his statement is at odds with the necessary actions one must take in order to make that statement). Therefore, any argument against self ownership is basically a non-argument, like trying to convince someone to be your slave. Now since we must freely own our bodies, any foreign entity enacting restrictions on what one can do that affects their and only their own body must necessarily be unjustified. This applies to age restrictions (driving, consent laws, etc. ) as well as to substance laws (drug laws, cigarettes, alcohol). In order to argue for these restrictions, one has to either deny self ownership (resulting in contradiction) or throw off the chains of reason completely (leaving us no reason to accept the argument in the first place).
Gun Control in the US

1. The Imgur link isn't actually broken, click on it yourself and it shows that it takes you to the chart, proving my points. 2. Regardless if there is less ammo, that still means that more than one person could die either or, and the criminal could easily just bring more ammo. 3. Which exactly proves my point. The criminals brought the guns illegally into the country to do terror acts, which is what I've been saying this entire time. If one of those hundreds of people had one gun, that would have limited the amounts of death in Paris. 4. Illegal trafficking of firearms would happen in the US if they banned guns as well, making it no better than Mexico or the rest of Central America. It would be a downhill spiral into more poverty and all that rampant problems we see there today. You never addressed the Swiss point though, every citizen there has a gun by law. 5. Once again, it doesn't not take training to pull a trigger on a handgun and killing someone, training for higher up firearms i can understand, but that doesn't make them necessary, I do believe the NRA bill should pass however. In conclusion, gun control is irrelevant to the issue of stopping crime and does nothing to help or aid the victim, and does more to help the criminal, who is breaking the law regardless, so illegal firearm trafficking would be much more rampant.
Gun Control in the US

1: Your Imgur link is broken, but sure, maybe the gun control laws passed did little to stop crime, but they were effective at reducing the amount of military-grade weapons used in shootings. Less Ammo = Less Death, Less Death = More People Alive After Homocides. I think the amount of survivors is more important than the amount of crimes in general, as shootings are generally and unfairly treated as one crime, whereas it should be considered at least 10 different cases of murder in the event that 10 people die in a shooting. 2: The point I'm trying to make about hunting rifles is this: Less Ammo = Less Death 3: Paris doesn't really apply to gun control, those rifles and devices were sourced from the middle-east by a terrorist organisation 4: Switzerland, Mexico and Honduras gun politics have very little to do with US gun control laws. The reason the homicide rate in Honduras is because of the extreme poverty, yet illegal trafficking of firearms is also to blame there, so if firearms and their respective favela gangs were disbanded/weeded out then I can bet you that homicide would become significantly harder to commit then. In reality though, their police force is terrible for that stuff, so I bet any laws there would be effective until the government gets their act together. So, all-in-all, the US is in no position to be compared to a place like Honduras, which is much harder to analyse and pick apart than the US. There are simply just too many variables for a reliable conclusion to be made. 5: Average citizens don't prepare for shootings or partake/pay for gun lessons. Most gun discipline in the US is self-taught or rarely practiced. The NRA has proposed to make gun training required, but so far no bill has been passed to make it so. An average citizen, therefore has inferior training and knowledge than a gunman with a larger gun/calibre. Remember, if you take away that gunman's "black rifle", you take away his ability to harm more people in the same position as the hypothetical woman. In conclusion, Gun laws may do little to actually stop crime, but they have the potential to reduce murder rates and increase the survivability of an encounter with a murderer.
Gun Control in the US

The act of 1994 actually did very little to stop any crime, as seen by the statistics: http://i.imgur.com... as it was concealed permits that lowered it, and that was before 1994. Hunting rifles will still, if shot in the head, will still kill some one as well, so it doesn't matter much. It doesn't matter whether or not 3 or 4 people die, it matters if one person plus another person plus another person dies. If you think about what happened in Paris, if one of the people who were in the line of fire, do you really believe that as many people would have died as the amount that did? Just to show how bad gun control is, Honduras is the murder capital of the world, and guns are banned there. Yet in Switzerland, one of the lowest gun rates in the world, guns are necessary for citizens. For the average citizen argument, it doesn't take that much training for anyone to take a pistol or a handgun and shoot someone else in the head, killing them. Back to the murder capital argument though, if you look at the crime rates compared to the amount of guns: http://i.imgur.com... it is in the favor of anti gun control. Why would Mexico and Honduras, where guns are flat out banned, would have such high gun rates, yet Switzerland the exact opposite if guns are banned?
Gun Control in the US

Gun Control is pretty much the perfect solution to lowering the crime rate. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, put in place by the Clinton Government was put in place to protect citizens from owning Semi-Automatic weapons that are used frequently in shootings and homicides. It is impossible to determine whether or not this bill was actually effective in reducing homicide rates, but it definitely made it significantly harder for gunmen to gain access to military-grade weapons, which in my opinion is a step in the right direction. As for criminals breaking the law, it would make it significantly riskier to obtain banned weapons, so shooters may have opted for more traditional hunting rifles. Hunting rifles are much harder to take multiple people out with, while restricted weapons are. This may have aided in bringing casualty rates from mass shootings down, which is also a good thing. Whether or not you shoot someone in the heart and kill them doesn't matter, the calibre of the rifle does though. Take for example a .22, it's a tiny bullet and will do significantly less damage than a military grade 5.56 round, reducing the likelihood of said injuries happening. Gun control can limit sizes of calibres normally available, thus aiding in the probability of survival from being hit in the same place as a 5.56 round. The average citizen is also highly untrained using a firearm, so having a gun to defend themselves doesn't really aid them all to much. If a badguy were to walk up to a woman with an AR-15 while the woman was carrying a pocket pistol and open fire, will it really help THAT much in defending her life?
Gun Control in the US

Gun control is irrelevant to actually stopping crime. If you look at the complete weapon sweep of australia and Britain, there was no correlation between the weapon sweep at the time and the amount of guns used. Having the right to protect yourself is one of the most basic human rights. If criminals are bound to kill someone, therefore breaking the law, then, implying gun control majorly happens across the US, then the criminals would have no problems simply breaking the law and obtain a gun. If you shoot someone in the heart of the forehead with either gun, its going to either kill them or leave disabilities that will last a long long time, honestly I'm not sure which is worse. But the point is, criminals are going to break the law anyways, restricting guns is only going to take guns away from people who use it in self defense against, you guessed it, criminals.