BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No more sex!

My opponent cordially invites me to look at several links instead of one. I will do this. Leading Causes of Death in the United States 1st link: already described 2nd link [1]: In developed countries, Ischaemic heart disease is the biggest killer. Second is cerebrovascular disease. Third is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Fourth is Lower respiratory infections. 3rd link [2]: The biggest killer is heart disease. Second is cancer, third is stroke, and fourth is chronic lung disease. 4th link [3]: The biggest killer is ischaemic heart disease. Second is stroke, third is lower respiratory infections, and fourth chronic obstructive lung disease. 5th link [4]: The biggest killer is heart disease. Second is malignant tumours, third is cerebrovascular disease, and fourth is chronic lower respiratory disease. In the top five links found when I typed ‘Leading Causes of Death in the United States,’ not a single link had sex diseases listed high. This utterly refutes my opponent’s erroneous claim that half of deaths are caused by sex diseases. My opponent also does not understand why healthcare demand will become higher with an aging population. This is because, the older the people become, and the more they need some form of healthcare in order to stay healthy. Here are two graphs that shows such a correlation [5] Finally, my opponent laments the fact that people are having ‘sex every minute’ with ‘strippers, thots, sluts, just everyone.’ I agree that this is not necessarily morally desirable. However, I also shall note that many things that are morally desirable are beneficial economically. Illegalizing prostitution, in the Chinese city of Dongguan will ‘knock off 50 billion yuan of its economy.’ [6] The prostitution and drug industries, in the UK, contribute 10 billion dollars of wealth, to the British economy every year. [7] We should not change this because we should not be controlling people’s sexual activities. In conclusion, my opponent still has not affirmed her (changed) resolution, nor has she provided a cogent response to my arguments. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com... [3] http://www.who.int... [4] http://health.howstuffworks.com... [5] http://american.com... [6] http://www.scmp.com... [7] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
No more sex!

I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Just think about it. How will there be higher demand for health care when you don't have people getting diseases or giving birth every minute? Can you please show me the proof? Kinda hard to believe. I do agree that I should of made myself a little clearer. You can still have sex but just know when the time is right. And with someone that is clean. But no, people have sex every minute. With strippers, thots, sluts, just everyone. Here's a little tip. When your searching about something just don't stop at the first link. Look at multiple different links.
No more sex!

In her second round, my opponent says that she “didn’t want sex to stop, but you just have to know when the time is right for you.”Unfortunately, it is my opponent’s responsibility to make such a view clear in her first round. As a matter of fact, the title of the debate completely contradicts her views. ‘No more sex’ is completely difference to ‘engaging in responsible sex.’ Due to this debacle, from now on, I will no longer make original arguments of my own, as I had planned, but instead critique my opponent’s arguments. My opponent begins her Second round by listing some of the negatives of sex. However, the positives of sex outweigh the negatives. In the worst case scenario, having sex can (indirectly) lead to death through disease. However, in the worst case scenario, not having sex ultimately leads to an aging work force, which in turn causes malfunction in economies, higher demand for health care and social security, and inevitably, lead to the extinction of humans. She specifically mentions sexual diseases, and claims that half of deaths in the United States are caused by such diseases. However, this is simply not true. A rudimentary search on Google of: ‘causes of death in America’ and clicking the first link, which is from the National Centre for Health Statistics shows this to be the case. As a matter of fact, the leading cause of death is heart disease, followed by cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases and stroke. She then argues that teenagers are “getting knocked up in high school which cause them to kick out.” Whilst I agree that education is extremely important, poverty is a far more significant factor of high school dropouts. [1] In conclusion, my opponent has changed the resolution mid-way through the debate, has not affirmed her new resolution, not provided any cogent arguments, provided misleading claims and failed to respond to my argument. [1] http://www.apa.org...
No more sex!

I understand that having sex produces babies. That is one pro, but also a con. Here are some cons of having sex. * Sex diseases * Teenager drop outs * People are not ready * Raping Men, and women are tricking each other to get in bed with them when they have a disease. Example, HIV, std, and aids. These diseases are spreading around like a wild fire. It's sick. Half of the deaths in America is because of these sex diseases. http://www.foxnews.com.... Take a look at that and read some stories. Teenagers are getting knocked up in high school which cause them to drop out. And education is a very important part of life. http://www.livestrong.com... I didn't say I wanted sex to stop, but you just have to know when the time is right for you. You should finish high school, find a partner, get married, THEN comes sex. But people are so eager to have sex now. You guys aren't ready. There are so many creeps out here. They take little children and rape them. That is sick. Some of those creeps have diseases and give it to the child.
No more sex!

In this debate I will be opposing my opponent’s view of ‘No more sex!’ I am, however, presuming that he/she is meaning sex as in “sexual activity , especially sexual intercourse,” as opposed to “gender.” Considering that my opponent’s views are extremely non-mainstream, and that he/she is bring a somewhat new-ish idea, he/she has the burden of proof. All I simply have to do, in order to win this debate, is negate his/her arguments. However, to further strengthen my case, I shall take the liberty of presenting some of my own arguments, one of which is in this round. I argue that, considering engaging in sexual intercourse produces people, this is good. I offer this following syllogism P1) Overall, producing new people is beneficial towards society, and we should not block this P2) Sexual intercourse is a medium in which people are produced C) Therefore, engaging sexual intercourse, overall, is beneficial towards society, and we should not block this. Contention 1 is probably the most controversial premise in the syllogism. This can be for several reasons. My opponent may argue, for instance, that over-population is a factor that makes producing new people become detrimental towards society, due to issues such as a lack of resources. However, this does not mean that we should stop producing people. Instead, perhaps, we could implement mitigation measures to limit the amount of people produced, such as birth regulations (eg. One child policy in China), or educating people about overpopulation and environmental issues, which over time, would result in less people being produced. Contention 2 and the Conclusion are pretty much undisputable. Unless my opponent wants to attempt a refutation of this, I shall leave this alone. If we stopped having sex, on the other hand, no more people are produced! This would be extremely detrimental towards society, leaving it with an aging workforce, and ultimately, a long period of time, leave the human race to die out. Other alternatives, such as scientifically ‘creating’ babies are not viable, for they are not well developed scientifically, and may offend certain religions, (Catholic, for instance) because humans are ‘playing God.’ [1] In conclusion, I have, in this round, presented one argument against the resolution, ‘No More Sex.’ In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute this, as well as my other (perhaps) forthcoming arguments, and present superior arguments. [1] http://www.salon.com...
No more sex!

This is possibly the first time, in my life that I have been called 'hilarious! ' My opponent then claim two things: She has backed up her statements. The graph is invalid, because it was published last year. Both statements are simply untrue. She has not even come close to backing up her statements. I have provided reasonable responses to all your arguments. You have dropped all you arguments. The only response you have given is against my assertion that healthcare costs are higher with older people; and it is an unreasonable response. Nor is the graph invalid, simply because it was published last year. She has not provided any justification why this is wrong, thus committing a bare assertion fallacy. My opponent is essentially suggesting, that in the space of one year, the overall trend of the graph took a dramatic turn towards lower healthcare costs. She also has not responded to my reasoning why healthcare costs rise with age. She simply is cherry-picking arguments to respond to. Finally, it shall be noted that Pro has the burden of proof due to the fact that she is making an extraordinary claim. She has virtually dropped all her arguments. She has not fulfilled her burden of proof. The resolution has not been affirmedVote Con. At least the debate was interesting.
No more sex!

I take it that my opponent has virtually conceded her point of view. Her only two rebuttals were that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that the data I showed was from 1996. Neither of those 2 arguments are cogent. My opponent complains that the data I showed was from 1996. This is irrelavent. Recent data confirms this. Vicenzo Atella's paper "The Effect of Age and Time to Death on Health Care Expenditures," published last year, shows a similiar correlation. [1] She also tells me to stop using Wikipedia, as it is unreliable. I agree and disagree. Although Wikipedia can be an unreliable source at times, this is not always the case. Contrary to the vast majority of history teachers, Wikipedia can be quite a reliable source. Adam Reiss, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics alongside Brian Schmidt and Saul Perlmutter for providing evidence that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rates, when for a rating of the 'Dark energy' page says: "It's remarkably accurate. Certainly better than 95%" [2] But anyway, we are not debating whether it is a reliable source. I only used Wikipedia as a source, because it was one of the first links of my Google Search, due to the fact you asked me to look at 'multiple different links.'All in all, my opponent has more or less conceded her main points of the debate. She, in the last round, did not provide any form of response to my arguments, conceded a major point, and failed to properly defend her own arguments.[1] http://papers.ssrn.com...;[2] http://www.livescience.com...;
No child left behind is dragging the "not left behind children" down.

I understand your intention. And my counter is that the effect you claim is not part of the statue. You made a claim of the form A causes BB is badStatute C causes Athus C is bad I'm disagreeing with statute C causes A. That's a counter case. I see no support in the statue for your contention. The statute is quite explicit about how to handle remedial needs, and provides both funding and mandates towards those alternate approaches. If you don't like the effects of heterogeneous classes that's understandable. It has nothing to do with no child no left behind. The tracking / detracking debate (http://tinyurl.com...) has been doing on for decades. Stastically teachers teach to the 23rd percentile prior to no-child left behind (Harlen & Malcom, 1997). I don't disagree on the problem, I do disagree on the cause. You have in no way supported the connection between the statute and your complaint.
No child left behind is dragging the "not left behind children" down.

Thanks Con, and yes, keeping it short and sweet :) While the NCLB statute doesn't directly state so, in reality, there are no doubts that in-fact NCLB demands more on an overall grouping of students than it might necessarily mean to. Sure, it wants to target the individual child in need, and offers some alternatives to helping said child or children, but; a) Transferring schools is not a reality to a lot of families b) Tutoring will more than likely cost the parent money, which may not be an option for a family on welfare for example b) And finally, summer school puts the student back in a grouping situation, which affects the students around them again. Not all students are in summer school to catch-up on old material. Summer school can be used for advancement, in which case once again, a student may be dragging down the class in order to obtain material that they are slow on learning
No child left behind is dragging the "not left behind children" down.

Wow 1000 character limit, I'm usually rather long winded. Where I would disagree with you is on your model that no child left behind requires or demands hetrogeneous grouping. Moreover there is nothing in the statute at all addressing how classes are to be taught. No child left behind requires the administration of schools to administer state-wide standardized tests. The corrective actions it recommends are: a) transfer to better or specialized schoolsb) tutoringc) supplementary educational services (example summer school). Nowhere in the act does it recommend that teachers "slow down" and diminish average performance or not teach the curriculum. The statue never asks for that and lists alternate solutions as its preferred means of addressing problems. [1] NCLB law: http://www.gpo.gov...
No child left behind is dragging the "not left behind children" down.

First, good luck to the challenger. I'd like to argue that the no child left behind statute is actually dragging down the rest of the children. What I mean by this is, the public school system can not cater to each individual child's needs. There's no way to single-handedly bring up an individual child's academic routine without affecting other students in the same class. If there is a child or children in a class that are slower than the rest, the teacher must slow down the material/course to allow the slower students to catch up. This inadvertently affects the children who are excelling in class, because now they are forced to slow down their pace to allow others to catch up. My challenger must prove that while the teacher is slowing down the course to work with the slower students, that the other students are not affected by it.
There is no god and evolution is a fact.

Well first off all I think it should be up to the christians to prove god does exist since they made the claim. Nevertheless I will try to disprove it.First of all the evidence of evolution:FossilsThis is the most common evidence supporting evolution. A fossil is a remain of a creature found in the ground. Several fossils have been found of creatures that is not found walking on earth. Concluding it is a fossil of an extinct specie. Confirming the evolution theory.SimilaritiesThere are anatomical and chemical similarities found between related species. If you take a look at the early stages of a creature (any animal or human), you see that the foetus is almost exactly the same, concluding they once were the same. Also have we established that some creatures have organs which have no use in todays society. For example take the coccyx of a human. Or the fact that whales have little armbones inside their bodies.Geographic resemblanceThe theory is that whenever a group of species gets split up, they start to adapt to their environment. Proof of this is for example the dark skin of African people, their skin has to darken so they don't get burned by the sun. Or polar bears that have a thick fur they use against the cold.Disproving GodI think that the lack of evidence supporting god and the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution points out that evolution is more plausible than creationism. We have not yet discovered how the universe was made (although there are theories) but that doesn't automatically mean a higher power made it. God is entirely made up so people could explain things they didn't understand. And nowadays it's used to control great masses of people, but that's a touchy subject so I won't go deeper into that.I'm waiting for your response.
There is no god and evolution is a fact.

I shall now continue. Evolution is a theory"Natural selection drives evolution. "I present one counter argument "Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution. " (1) Natural selection is nothing but a scientific theory itself. Fossils"I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant an explanation of the existence of dinosaur fossils. "They exist because the dinosaur died. "Since according to the bible, they didn't exist. "I have not been arguing from the bible. I've actually tried to stay away from the bible. "You have the problem (the dinosaur fossils), you think of a solution for that problem which makes sense (evolution theory), then you throw in some evidence and you have the solution for the dinosaur fossils. Of course this is not how the evolution theory was created, but it works too. "The fossil exists because the dinosaur died. It is as simple as that. Simlarities"Again, according to the bible, God made men in his image: perfect, intelligent and creative. It would have made no sense to make them almost the same as apes, since he clearly made apes to be less superiour to humans. "Exactly, God created apes to be similar to man but, still inferior to man. Natural Selection v Creationism"Everything evolution does, can happen without need of a God. "This does not mean God was not involved in natural selection. God would just be an extra guide. If God created the Universe then God also created evolution. GodThe disproof failed. And my opponent never disproved the pantheistic philosophy of God. Or any of the other numerous philosophies I noted. First MoverStephen Hawking only disproves the notion of a personal God. Hawking believes "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws. " (2) Hawking does not discount an impersonal God. Furthermore, your quote simply says God does not have to be involved. Simply stating something is unnesseasry does not mean it is not there.1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is no god and evolution is a fact.

I It seems this is our last chance."There are no facts explaining what drives evolution."Natural selection drives evolution. If you see the big picture, it all logically makes sense. When a stronger animal is born, it will survive. The stronger animal make babies, they all survive too. This is not only strenght, but also agility, intelligence and more.That's why it seems like the earth was almost created for us humans. It's not that the earth has adapted for us, but the other way around. So this drives evolution."The fossils eistence is due to the death of another being."I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant an explanation of the existence of dinosaur fossils. Since according to the bible, they didn't exist. It's all makes perfect sense. You have the problem (the dinosaur fossils), you think of a solution for that problem which makes sense (evolution theory), then you throw in some evidence and you have the solution for the dinosaur fossils. Of course this is not how the evolution theory was created, but it works too."It does nothing to disprove that God created chimpanzees and men to be similar."Again, according to the bible, God made men in his image: perfect, intelligent and creative. It would have made no sense to make them almost the same as apes, since he clearly made apes to be less superiour to humans."Embryo analysis"I don't know what you see, but I clearly see 8 different animals in the picture. A fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chicken, a pig, a cow, a dog and a human. These animals are all very different from each other, but they have the same beginning. Of course there's not way to determine wheter every single animal has the same embryo, but this is enough to example to convince scientists it is. This supports evolution because it shows we have the same ancestor. If God created all animals different from each other, they would also look different in the beginning."Natural Selection vs. Creationism"As I said, evolution doesn't need a guide. Everything evolution does, can happen without need of a God. Even the development of the first living cells has been explained. I have an article about it:http://www.windows2universe.org...It seems that the first living things fed themselves of natural acids and later on they evolved into having the sun as their basic energy source. No God needed.First moverI agree that Hawking knows more about this subject than I do. So I believe him if he says time has always existed. Nevertheless, he did quote he believed God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe."Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...I hope you're happy with my objections. And I look forward to the outcome of this debate.
There is no god and evolution is a fact.

"How exactly do dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution?"The evolution theory is the most logical explanation for these fossils. Creationism has no plausible way of explaining this (correct me if I'm wrong)."Related species are related. How does this support evolution?"This supports evolution because this theory is based on relativity of creatures. About that every creature started as one and the same cell. As I explained, these species started to change because they got split up. Creationism though, says God created all the animals as different creatures and not related to each other. Evolution seems to disprove this. "Please provide source for this unverifiable statement."This picture should do the trick:http://www.talkorigins.org...Here's the explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org.... I know Wikipedia is not a legit source but it's enough to satisfy."What's the point of this statement?"My point is that is is higly probably that whales used to have arms (at least whale creatures) and humans used to have tails. This goes deeper into the changing to environment theory."Why could God not have guided the evolutionary process?"Because the evolution on its own does not need a guidance. Mother nature does all. I'm happy to explain if you don't understand but my point is that a guidance was not necessary. "Do you deny the existence of a first cause or first mover?"I'm not entirely sure myself of this because it's a complicated subject. But if you go with that logic I think God would need a creator too.Disproving God is a hard thing since it's a really abstract thing. As South Park explained nicely: there is also no way to disprove an invisible flying spaghetti monster in the air.About evolution being a theory or a fact. There is no way to completely prove evolution, but the evidence supporting it is strong. And in the Netherlands, where I live, evolution is taught as a fact at schools.I must say you are more rational than more believers I know. I'm waiting for your answer.
gender is a choice

Cool! I can't wait as well :) So what I'm going to argue is that because gender is a social construct, an individual should be able to choose whatever gender they want. Weather this is in the gender binary or not I believe its a choice. If an individual were born a male per say, they may feel gender dysphoria daily and dysphoria can make you feel as if you were born in the wrong body. I look forward to your rebuttal:)