BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gender is unalterable- transgenders are misguided

"It is possible that their brain structure is not caused by genetics but rather particular conditions in the womb." Genes play an enormous role in how our brain develops. As you might imagine, the blueprints (genes) for male and female brains are very different. I can't stress enough how important genes are to cerebral development. "Consequently not only is it cruel, but it is factually incorrect to portray transsexuals as insane." First, I never said transgenders are insane. I said they may be mentally ill. Secondly, denying a group of people treatment for a real problem is much more cruel than possibly offending them. Third, there's no shame in being mentally ill. I've got my own head problems, but I don't tear myself up about it.
Gender is unalterable- transgenders are misguided

Thank you for hosting this debate. Numerous studies including one by Antonio Guillamon demonstrated that the brains of transsexuals do somewhat resemble that of the genders they assume. (https://www.newscientist.com...)It is possible that their brain structure is not caused by genetics but rather particular conditions in the womb. Regardless we all share this fact in common, and so should not claim 'mental illness' as a consequence. There is nothing delusional about transsexuals, as the gender they choose to be is not an irrational belief but the product of a different brain structure. Consequently not only is it cruel, but it is factually incorrect to portray transsexuals as insane.
Gender is unalterable- transgenders are misguided

I'm new to this, so go EZ on me! ;) Well, I'll get right down to it then. 1. We're born either female or male. 2. Both genders differ significantly. (Think chromosomes, genitalia, brain structure) 3. There's no changing you're genetic makeup. 4. So gender is unalterable. A transgender with false beliefs about his/herself suffers from a delusion, and may have an underlying mental illness. (Think of an anorexic who thinks they're fat when they're really not.) The right thing to do is not indulge transgenders' delusions, just as we shouldn't tell anorexics they're fat. Lastly, everyone is equal, so transgenders should also be treated with love, compassion, and affection.
Cigarettes should be banned in the US

I apologize for the forfeit; I'm not sure how my opponent managed to write so much in his/her defense in a mere five minutes.1. Smoking bans inhibit citizen freedom.It's your choice to smoke, not the government's. Do you want your government to nanny your whole life? It's your body, so it should be your choice.2. Smoking damage overblown.Do your own research on sites like FORCES or Lauren Colby's In Defense of Smokers; smoking decreses breast cancer risk, promotes cognition, amongst other benefits.3. Tobacco used for years as medicine.It's been used for centuries as native american medicine, and no one's ever had a problem with it for hundreds of years?
Do Hippies Smell? (Joke Debate)

I've already established that hygiene does not necessarly impact smellThey still don't smell like a drug cartel.My other rebuttles hold, including that weed doesn't smell bad.Pro is too vague when he mentions that hippies left drugs on his farm.Because I've established that weed is an aquired smell, which meens that after exposure (which pro points out his experience was come and go), weed can smell amazing. Hippies smell like weed. Therefore, hippies can smell amazing.I urge a con ballot.
Do Hippies Smell? (Joke Debate)

It should be noted that many Hippies do not live in one specific place. A nomadic lifestyle can greatly reduce hygiene, which can cause people to smell. I made that there cartel comparison because a common saying is that when something smells bad, it smells like death. It was also made because I had found many discarded drugs on my farm. After they left, the area reeked for several weeks. My town even had a committee report on the visitation. I will still argue this case for 'Murrica. -T.Q.
Do Hippies Smell? (Joke Debate)

AFF did not reply to my rebuttals so they stand.New Rebuttals:1)Pressing up my nose, the video does not smell bad. This evidence works in my favor.2)Seeing them, smelling distance, music, and spreading disease does not impact smell.3)As I live within driving distance from a great city for hippies, I'd say I am well addressed on the subject like my opponent. (http://tinyurl.com... #2).4)Drug cartels also smell like dead bodies. I have not met a corpsey hippy.5)I established weed is not bad.
Do Hippies Smell? (Joke Debate)

http://www.youtube.com... This video provides a good look at the smell of hippies, amongst other things. I have seen them hippies near my farm. I have smelled them from a distance, and it is not good. They're always playing their guitars and spreading around diseases. They've been doing weed and LSD all the time, and I'd rather not have my farm smell like a drug cartel headquarters. I don't think they smell, I KNOW they smell based on personal experience. -Toby Queef
Do Hippies Smell? (Joke Debate)

I thank the AFF for the debate.My understanding of the resolution is in the commentsRefutationsBeing ugly effects sight, not smellFleas may or may not correlate to the presence of smell. No evidence provided by Pro.The presence of dirt has been shown to not necessarily cause foul odur. (http://tinyurl.com...)My balls and hippies do not smell similarArgumentHippies like weed and often smell like it. Weed is an aquired smell. Weed's can actually smell good.I await AFF's responce.
Seattle Seahawks is the best NFL team!!

no worries bud! thank you for your response To end with, this is what i have to say to my opponent. Players do matter in many teams that have no talent. As my opponent says, Broncos would be nothing without Peyton Manning. To add to this, the Packers are nothing without Aaron Rogers. (we saw this throughout half the season when Aron Rogers was injured). What does this mean? That those teams are not good. The Colts were awful after Manning was injured (2 years ago). Yes many quarterbacks define the team. But as I stated in my previous argument, Russel Wilson is great, but he is helped with many more great and talented players. I stated the offense last argument. But teams don't just need a good offense to win, but a good defense. As we see, the Seattle Seahawks have the number one defense in the NFL. Very physical corners and a strong secondary. They are top in the league with interceptions (having 11 in the last 3 games of the season). With these turnovers, it allows the offense to score. But the Hawks have everything going for them this year. Up until week 17, the punt special team allowed the least amount of punt return yards. This is due to great discipline of the punter and having very fast "gunners." Everything ties together with a great coaching and discipline. "We treat every game like its the playoffs" -says Pete Carol. Well now that the Seahawks are the number one seed with home field advantage in the playoffs, it will come to more of a benefit to the hawks and we will see what happens. Thank you for your consideration and i look forward to my opponents response.
Seattle Seahawks is the best NFL team!!

So sorry for my really late reply! I was very busy today. When you were discussing Russel Wilson, you were right. Many people did think he would not succeed in the NFL. But he is. But he is not the only player to do so. Some players destroy the doubters but still are a part of a losing team. The injuries of great players have limited some aspects of the team, but they would still have lost the games they played in. Teams should not be defined by wins or losses, but they are. Thus, people seem to think that they are the best team. Let's take the Broncos for my example; They are 13-3 because of Peyton Manning, that's a fact. People say they are the best team, but they are not. Without Peyton today (Sunday) in some of the game, the Broncos scored 3 points. The Seahawks have talented players, just like Houston and Jacksonville do. But the difference is, their talented players affect the entire game. Look at the whole team, and that's something different.
Seattle Seahawks is the best NFL team!!

Thank you for your response Starting with the players and well, talent. Pete Carroll (head coach) took time to carefully select each player that he wanted to make the team. Lets start with the offence. Russel Wilson (quarterback) was a 12th pick of the 3rd round of the draft. Because of his height (5-11) being the shortest QB in the NFL, he was looked down on and people never thought he would be able to see over the line. As we have seen through the 2 seasons he has played, he has some of the better statistics for a what we would call "Rookie" But this is not about the quarter back, hes a greater leader for a GREAT team. Despite the injuries of Golden Tate, Sydney Rice and most of all Percy Marvin, the Seattle Sea hawks still pulled in 12 wins of 15. This is also with the two tackles being gone for half the season! This is due to great talent AND great coaching. As my opponent points out "12th Man" (significant for the stadiums crowd and volume at "Century Link Field" Yes i agree that this has a great advantage of how the Seahawks play. But the team has proven they can win away games also. This year they have only lost 2 away games. So When you look at it, They can beat teams at home and while away. My last point and MOST IMPORTANT!! It was no fluke and upset that the Cardinals beat the Sea hawks 17-10 in last weeks game. The Cardinals should not be overlooked. They are a good team with a great defense. Record 10-5. You cant base everything off one game though. Everyone wants their "favorite team" to be undefeated. But its the NFL! Good teams will take bad games they played and will turn around and fix the mistakes they make and look forward to the next game. Thank You and i look forward to my opponents response.
Seattle Seahawks is the best NFL team!!

I happily accept! Good luck! MY OPENING STATEMENT: The Seattle Seahawks are not the best football team in the NFL. Other teams have players that go beyond what the Seahawks do. Take the Cardinals game vs. them for example. The Cardinals won, pulled off an upset. That was not luck. The team beat them. Plus, the 'hawks have an advantage with their fans roaring. Take away the fans, then things would be different.
The Confederate Flag Is a Symbol of Racism

I do find it unfair, as they had more chances to attack my position, but will agree with my opponents wishes. In conclusion, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism. My websites listed in past rounds are credible and very reliable. The Confederate flag does not represent and never has represented racism. It is a symbol of southern heritage, representing freedom, states rights, individual responsibility, and resistance to an overpowering government, proven by factual evidence provided from past rounds. I urge you to vote con, as there is an overwhelming amount of factual evidence that proves the flag was not a symbol of racism in the past, nor is it in the present United States.
The Confederate Flag Is a Symbol of Racism

First, it is important to be aware of the history of the flag. The rebellion states did not want anti-slavery, since it was their majorly hurt the economy since slaves were depended on. For that reason, the states declared a rebellion. This was an act of rebellion against the Northern states, who were believed to be trying to enforce their overall political dominance, upon the Southern states in general. The concept of the flag symbolism, as depicted on the first flag, was to show the secession of the 11 Southern states from the Union. Later on, 2 more states joined and the flag's design had to be changed. It took up the new design of the X with 13 white stars. The meaning of this flag was clear from the thirteen stars, which in actuality represented the total number of seceded Southern states or colonies. The blue X represented their unified act of secession from the Union and other Northern states. In modern times, many Southerners still continue to use the flag, as they believe it represents the distinct development of Southern culture. They believe it's a part of their right to free speech and expression. However, the collateral damage the Confederate flag being displayed, is that some feel disrespected and racially targeted. Symbols of the Confederacy, are still in use and have become an issue of dispute. In the 1990s, many Southern state legislatures attempted to allow the use of the Confederate flag as a part of its political and civic heritage, since they consider it a part of the American history and do not view the flag as a representation of racism or any form of superiority. The main argument is it supports slavery. However, this is not true. While it did fly during slavery, the same can be said of the U.S. flag. The United States flag flew over slavery a full 70 years before the Confederate States of America came into existence. The Confederate flag never flew over the ships that brought the slaves over here. To top it all off, the Confederate States of America freed their slaves in 1863; the Federal Union did not until 1868 with the passage of the 13th amendment. The Confederate flag was a more egalitarian flag than the Federal flag, in that it had integrated troops. In the Federal army, the black troops served in their own divisions and served under white officers. The Confederate Army used African Americans both as soldiers and laborers. The Black Soldiers in the Confederate Army were paid the same rate as the White Soldier, they were paid more If they served as laborers. Plus if the Black Confederate soldiers found any Northern weapons or equipment, they could sell them to the Confederate Army for about twice what they were worth on the open market.
The Confederate Flag Is a Symbol of Racism

Hello! I strongly believe that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism, but am surprised to find that many people believe differently in this regard. I usually don't like to debate things I think are based on factual rather than philosophical evidence, but I think it is important to make a thorough defense of my case, since there aren't many debates on the subject on DDO. While I will not put any skill requirements on the debate, I would prefer that my opponent make an effort in her/his rounds. My opponent does not need to be skillful, but I would prefer that my opponent work hard on her/his rounds. Please to not forfeit rounds. If you wish to concede, please write your resignation in the debate. First round is NOT acceptance: please move into your argument immediately. On the last round Con MUST say instead of a debate "As agreed, this last round is left blank" (or something to that effect). The reason I have set it up this way is that I would like to cater my debate to my opponent rather than vise-versa. Please note also that this debate is NOT about whether the owner/bearer of the Confederate Flag is racist, but about whether is Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism in the contemporary United States of America. I will support the position that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism. Thank you so much for accepting! I'm looking forward to what I suspect will be a fantastic debate. --kbub (Pro)
Should gay marriage be allowed (non religious reasons)

Hi! This is my first debate on debate.org. I hope my points are as consistent as possible! For this debate, I am choosing to write on this position not to impose my beliefs, but as an exercise of my debating ability. I would like to approach this question from a utilitarian approach. The factor of choice is something I hope to address later in this submission. First, allowing gay marriage is not equivalent to allowing sexual intercourse among homosexuals. Prohibiting gay marriage does not imply that such persons are not allowed to engage in such relationship. For any given issue, if a prohibition of a choice is not mentioned by law, whether that choice is approved by the populace has no bearing on whether that choice is actually illegal. Explicitly passing a law with regards to same-sex marriage is more of a promotion for same-sex relationships. In countries with a gender imbalance, this is a proposition that will affect them in the long term due to population trends. Especially in less-developed environments where cultural traditions are much more significant, immediately passing such a proposal would lead to social disruption, that would hinder progress to some extent towards other immediate social issues such as corruption and poverty.
After this debate concludes, my opponent will receive at least one vote.

This round is complete speculation - as it's impossible to prove either PRO or CON. The only way for my opponent to possibly prove that I MUST recieve one vote is if he goes through every single frequenter of debate.org and asks him. However, I understand what my opponent is trying to do - so if I left a speech like that I'd surely be crushed. My opponent is debating me, knowing that it is physically impossible for CON to win unless he wills it, and even then because it may not be possible. Let me explain: The fact is, it is nigh impossible for CON to win this debate. The reason why? PRO has a vote. If PRO has a vote on the outcome of this debate, he ensures that no matter what he will vote for CON. Therefore this resolution is abusive, as there is no probable way, unless my opponent forfeits his own vote, that I will win this debate. My opponent is running an abusive case which is impossible to advocate the CON side because all my opponent must do to win is say, "I will vote for you." However, I'd like to make the point that the PRO has no possible way of knowing that there will be one vote for me. He can assume, but he has no conclusive evidence in his brain that he will vote for me. There is no evidence supporting PRO, however I still will not win. In fact, I'd like to bring the following point to your attention: The Pro is using this debate simply to gain a better winning record. If I recieve no votes, I have clearly won the debate but I do not recieve the win. If I recieve one vote, people see that I have recieved one vote and realize PRO has won, and therefore you should vote PRO. So I urge you, the judges, to vote CON. This will give pro the theoretical win, however I will win the actual round. The reason for this? I understand my opponent's foul trick, and I'd like you to prevent this from happening again. In this round I have practically conceded to him, however there is no other option. I could hammer in the fact that he cannot prove anything, however after the round we see that he would still have won. So use your logic - do you want to vote with someone with a sly, one-sided, unfair debate? Or, do you want to vote with the person who has provided an analysis of his opponent's debauchery, and practically unveiled whatever logical fallacy he attempts to explain. At this point, you must vote CON. Thank you for the interesting topic ;P ~HQ
The Gender Spectrum is nonsensical

Thanks, Doffy.In Round 2, Pro concedes a key point in this debate that is very important when deciding the victor."... a man who possesses less masculine traits does not really mean that he possesses more feminine traits; same thing with feminine traits. It could be that there could be certain intensities of a masculine/feminine personality." -DoffyThis is exactly what the gender spectrum is about. Just because a man possesses more masculine traits doesn't make him less feminine than another man. However, it does make him more masculine. Therefore, there is some sort of disparity in masculinity levels in males, meaning some can be hyper-masculine, while others are very non-masculine. Men can also be feminine, as they may enjoy things that society has deemed more likely to be associated with females. The same male that can be hyper-masculine can also enjoy things such as wearing makeup, fashion, and "chick flicks." These are all things associated more often with the female sex, but remember, sex and gender are different. Therefore, as people can be more masculine/feminine than one another, a gender spectrum exists. However, I'd actually argue that two exist independent of one another. Though increased masculinity would likely correspond with decreased femininity and vice versa, an individual can be both hyper-masculine and hyper-feminine. s://clareflourish.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />[1][1] https://clareflourish.wordpress.com...
The Gender Spectrum is nonsensical

Hello, Doffy, thank you for this debate. I accept the challenge, and would like to add that I personally am not a big fan of the gender spectrum, but as a bit of a brain exercise am accepting the debate anyway. That being said, I do find merit in the general idea of a gender spectrum, but first the distinction must be made between gender and sex.Gender- the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. [1]Sex- the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. [1]From here I'd like to start our debate by asking my opponent a simple question.Suppose that there are three members of the same sex (we'll go with male). we can call them Bob, Joe, and Tom. Is it possible that Bob is more masculine than Joe, and Joe is more masculine than Tom? Likewise, is it possible that Tom is more feminine than Joe, and Joe more feminine than Bob?[1] http://apps.who.int...
The Gender Spectrum is nonsensical

I have not yet had a proper debate on this topic. I assume that groups that believe in the Gender Spectrum have atleast some people who have proper and logical arguments to support this. If gender is a spectrum, i.e. a continuum between two extremes, then everyone would be "Non-binary". Which would make the concept of a "Gender spectrum" redundant and meaningless. Round 1: Greetings and acceptance; opening. Round 2: Arguments, rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals and closing.