BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lifestyle of casual sex is unethical

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited. I extend my previous arguments and will expand on my previous arguments. Section A. Moral Non-Cognitism and Moral Nihilism. My opponent is making an ethical statement, which is not an empirical fact like "water boils at approximately 100 degrees Celsuis", but rather an opinion regarding what is right or wrong. Since morality is not an empirical fact, it cannot be proven right or wrong, thus there is no truth value to ethical statements. It seems that since there are many ethical systems, such as consquentialism and dentology, whatever people think is moral is moral. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) Section B: The Non Sequitur Fallacy Just because there are negatives to the PL does not necessarily make the PL unethical as a whole. You are making an objective claim that the PL as a whole is unethical, where there are many unique expierences of PL that do not neccessarily entail those harmful things. Perhaps PL is harmful to some degree, but I fail to see how it is unethical, or violating what is right and wrong. Section C. Consquentialism According to utiltiarianism, something is ethical if it maximizes utility for all, which means maximizes pleasure and happiness and reduces suffering. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It is well known fact that sex is a pleasurable expierence for human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and it is likely that the more sex one has, the more net pleasure and happiness one brings to others. According to egoism and hedoism, an action is moral if it benefits one's self and furthers one's own happiness, something that a PL is known to do. According to alturism, an action is moral if it results in pleausre or happiness for another person, which sex does. Section D. Intentionalism According to intentionalism, morality is defined as if one intended to do good. If one intends to do good with a PL, then it is ethical. In conclusion, the resolution is negated.
Lifestyle of casual sex is unethical

Definitions Ethical: What is right or wrong. The Resolution: Lifestyle of casual sex is unethical. For this my opponent has the BoP of proving PL is unethical, while I as con simply have to negate his position. Arguments My opponent has never justified that objective moral values exist, and since he is making an objective claim that the PL is unethical, he has to justify that objective moral values exist. In fact, ethical nihilism states that there is no objective ethical system, only one's subjective interpreation of ethics.
Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive

It is not a matter of if you can afford the surgery or not. People have the freedom to move and register in others states, therefore making this change on a birth certificate very simple.By looking at the map I posted in Round 1, there is not state too far to go to if this is an issue someone feels that strongly about.If someone is unwilling to drive/fly to change one of, if not THE, most important part about their identity, then it is not that big of an issue in the long run.Relevant note: Topics of side-notes, and the difficulties of being transgender do not apply to the gender given at birth. I strongly believe the discrimination of anyone is wrong, but being different is unfortunately looked down upon.And your statistics, which I will bring up in a moment, do not have any detailing on transgendered who felt their mis-assigned gender was the caused of their discrimination.Now, onto your statistics... Your stats on discrimination, household income, etc are all from 1999.The Employment Eqaulity Act did not take effect until October 1999.http://www.equality.ie... The Housing Equality Act started in 2010http://www.stonewall.org.uk...Extra Health Care rights were put into place in 2012 to accomodate Transgenders and others. (which disallow discrimination and refusal of treatment)http://transequality.org... Your monthly incomes are from 1990-99 (cenus stats) that have no been adjusted for inflation.The US has made leaps and bounds to accomodate every gender, including those separate from just male or female. So not only do your discrimnation arguments not apply to which gender a person was assigned at brith, but the statistics are too old to recogonize the benfits the US has been able put in to place to protect and serve transgenders.
Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive

(Thank you for being so respectful with your argument. This is a pretty controversial topic and there was a lot of room for hateful responses or trolls to show up.) The problem is that cisgender is seen as the default. If someone realizes they aren't cis gender, extra work is required. Plus, 25 states may seem like a lot, but that means that half of all transgender people can't have their gender legally changed without surgery. Many transgender people don't want surgery, and many more simply can't afford it. If gender was left blank at birth, the person (cisgender or transgender) could fill it in later once they're old enough to know for sure whether they're really cisgender or not. It could be a detail filled out when they apply for a driver's license or something similar. Or, better yet, it could be something that's never officially filled out, just like how we don't have to legally register our sexual orientation. You claim that feeling different isn't harmful, but statistics show otherwise. Over 40% of transgender people attempt suicide. Only 3.7% of adults and 15% of teens, cisgender and transgender, have suicidal thoughts. The percentage of transgender suicide attempts are drastically higher than the general population. The average monthly income for a transgender man is $1,100, and the average income for a transgender woman is only $744. The average monthly income for the general population is $2,313. Almost 60% of transgender people report being discriminated against when it comes to jobs, leaving them unable to get decent jobs no matter how qualified they are. 20% of transgender people end up homeless, while only 1% of the general population does. 83% of transgender women have been verbally abused for it, and 37% reported physical abuse. If being transgender was seen as just as normal as being cisgender, rather than something weird and foreign and wrong, this wouldn't happen. Leveling the playing field from the start instead of automatically setting up cis as the default would be a big step towards achieving that. Sources: http://www.transgenderlaw.org... http://www.worldsalaries.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... http://www.cdc.gov...
Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive

I will be on the Con side (against), the harmful/restrictiveness of assigning a gender to a new born. Pro brings up a great point about Transgender and Cisgender, and how they're genetic makeup, or even they're personaly preference may cause them to believe they are assigned to the wrong gender. Men may believe they are women, vice versa. Those born with a different genetic make-up having both male and female sexual organs may feel different then what their parents decided. However, being assigned a gender is in no way harmful or restrictive to the respective child. -Only 6 states in the US restrict birth certificates from being ammened for gender changes. -25 states allow birth certificates to be ammended for gender reassignment without the need of a sexual reassignment surgery. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Therefore, if someone feels they are the wrong gender, they have every right (in 44 out of 50 states) to lawfully change their gender and be recognized as the gender they see fit. Feeling or being different than others is not harmful. It is simply how you were made. People can either accept the gender they were assigned and live life to the fullest, or choose to change their gender, legally, and live life to the fullest. The US has made great strides in accomodating those who may not be, or feel, simply male or female.
Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive

Assigning children the title "male" or "female" at birth only harms them in the long run. For transgender children, assigning them a gender at birth only leads to pain and confusion. They don't understand why they don't feel like the gender they were assigned and feel like there's something wrong with them. For cisgender children, having genders from the start reinforces gender stereotypes (pink rooms for girls, blue for boys, etc.) It also harms transgender people by putting forth the idea that cisgender is normal, while transgender is not (much in the same way that homosexual "coming out" does. i.e. You're assumed to be heterosexual or cisgendered until you specifically state otherwise, instead of them both being seen as possible options.) In this debate, we are debating gender, not sex. Sex: The biological makeup of an individual's reproductive anatomy or secondary sex characteristics Gender: Social roles based on the sex of the person or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness. Transgender: A person who's sex (or gender assigned at birth) does not match their true gender Cisgender: A person who's sex (or gender assigned at birth) does match their true gender
Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive

Discrimination is present in every race.However, general acceptance of those who are transgendered is a huge step which soceity is taking.You have stated that Transgender is considered the "Other" gender in today's society, and that this is a problem.You are also stating birth certificates are to be left blank, and to let the child decide (at adulthood I can only assume) Despite having the ability to change.You cannot elave a birth certificate blank. That would then cause even more confusion to those who need to verify you by your birth certificate. So you are essentially posing the idea that an "Other" slot be put on birth certificates. or a "To Be defined later" option (which is essentially 'other')This unforuntately contradicts itself. They don't want to be considered the "Other gender" to the cisgender, but they want to be able to be listed as another form of "Other" on their birth certificate. Thank you for the debate
Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive

I apologize for the problem with my statistics, I had so many tabs open that I didn't notice the dates on some of them. I'm new to debating and I was more focused on which sites had clear concise information. I'll pay more attention to that next time. It's not necessarily that they're unwilling to drive/fly to another state. Again, with so many of them being poor or homeless they may not even be able to afford that. Many people living in poverty can't afford a plane ticket and don't own a car. (In a 2010 study, it was found that one out of every five transgender people had been homeless at some point. Even if that was before the Housing Equality Act, it was still only four years ago. Plenty of transgender people who are still alive today have still suffered from this, even if things are improving.) Even if they do own a car, they may not be able to get a day off work to drive there (especially if they're working multiple jobs.) As I mentioned, having society viewing cisgender as the default and transgender as "other" is the source of a lot of the discrimination. If everyone wasn't assumed to be cisgender at birth, it would be a big step towards a society that was more accepting of transgender people. Sources: http://transequality.org...
Cyber bullying

The definition of cyberbullying is, "The use of electronic communication to bully a person," (Google). That means that cyberbullying is aiming towards one person and is trying to make them feel bad. If you say that abortion should be illegal, it is not aiming towards a certain person, and it is just an opinion towards a thing that you believe in. If you say that abortion should be illegal, then it's not talking to a certain person, its just what you think and is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings.
Cyber bullying

The problem with cyber-bullying laws is the same problem there is with hate speech laws, if someone like myself is trying to introduce a new way of thinking, like saying something like "abortion should be illegal" or "transgenderism is a serious mental disorder" then that can be misconstrued as cyber-bullying. This exact situation has happened to myself and my friends, almost ruining the life of my best friend. Cyber-bullying laws prevent people from introducing newer more productive ideas, and while it might stop other people from straight up harassment, it can get in the way of progress. Here's an example, imagine if you will if there was computers and such in the civil war, you're telling me that if the north said somethimy like "the south is full of racist garbage" then that would be cyber-bullying, no matter how true it is.
Cyber bullying

The con said " If you are affected by cyberbullying then why are you on the internet at all. You have complete power in this situation, you can either choose to say that you will not care what they say or you can choose to just not look at the place on the internet where you are, and whether or not your feelings are hurt is irrelevant, the fact is that in this country we have the freedom of speech, which allows anyone to say anything without the interference of the government, and while you can try and persuade them to stop, it isn't illegal, so while I might agree with you that cyber-bullying sucks and is hurtful, they technically aren't doing anything wrong." But, I am still on the internet because I was younger when it happened, around 3rd grade. I am older now and can handle it. I was on a little kid website where you can become friends and talk to other people. Even though there is freedom of speech, there is a point that goes too far. By the way, from the website, Freedom of Speech Versus Cyberbullying, they said that cyberbullying goes beyond of what the First Amendment covers. Also, even though you say it isn't illegal, it actually is. All of my websites that I have visited, they all said that it is illegal. According to criminal.findlaw.com, "Nearly all states have bullying laws in place, many with cyberbullying or electronic harassment provisions. Cyberbullying is considered against the law, but most people aren't caught or stayed secretive." So, my opponent said that cyberbullying isn't against the law, but actually it is.
Cyber bullying

If you are affected by cyber bullying then why are you on the internet at all. You have complete power in this situation, you can either choose to say that you will not care what they say or you can choose to just not look at the place on the internet where you are, and whether or not your feelings are hurt is irrelevant, the fact is that in this country we have the freedom of speech, which allows anyone to say anything without the interference of the government, and while you can try and persuade them to stop, it isn't illegal, so while I might agree with you that cyber-bullying sucks and is hurtful, they technically aren't doing anything wrong.
Cyber bullying

The problem is that nobody actually sees it that way. Many people see cyber-bullying as "someone said something to hurt my feelings, that's cyber-bullying and it's illegal". Everybody has different definitions of the word bullying. So when I say something to hurt someones feelings, the believe that I'm bullying them when realistically, I'm just saying something they disagree with. The problem is that there is no universal definition of bullying. So for your "definition of cyber-bullying", it uses a word that has no definition. Which means that it really doesn't tell you anything about that word. I understand that cyber-bullying laws help people who actually are getting bullied, (or at least by your definition bullied). But other times it steps on the 1st amendment right to free speech.
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances

1)It is definitely important to consider the biological makeup of pedophiles. 2)However, since they have no control over those urges because of they are born with those urges then they MUST be removed from society. 3)I continue to argue that incarceration is the only possible option for pedophiles who engage in sexual against minor or any other individual without consent since there are no other methods that have proven to be effective solutions to pedophilia. 4)Although I can recognize the possible harsh treatment that a pedophile may undergo while incarcerated this is a sacrifice that must be made for the rest of society to be safe. 5)At this time, I am not familiar with a facility that specially made for pedophiles that deals with serious offenders while offering services to those who have pedophilic ideas but have not acted out on them. 6)If a separate facility is made for this particular population that can both serve to incarcerate and treat a pedophile then we might be able to consider the possibility of treatment for the cases that involved no physical contact. However, until such facility is created we cannot risk the safety of the community by having those people in the community. 7)You have also not made it clear how these people who commit actual physical acts would be punished in such a facility. 8)The purpose of incarceration is to punish an individual for wrongdoing. 9)To "remove someone from society" without offering a clear punishment will not teach the pedophile anything. 10)Therefore, Therefore, persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be incarcerated and not treated in all instances.
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances

agree, that it would be waste of resources to force a possible pedophile to undergo treatment if he/she is unwilling. However, you did not discount the possibility of offering services to those who ARE willing. 2)We should not push for a purely punitive model that assumes that all pedophiles will be unwilling to change their behavior. 3)You stated, "Pedophilia is biologically rooted attraction that does not change." If we are keeping in mind the biological factors that lead to some of this pedophilic behavior then why are we putting the blame on the individual pedophile when clearly nature made this person commit such acts? 4)Many of the pedophiles that enter the criminal justice system end up in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) in order to ensure their "safety." However, life in the SHU is very much the same as being in solitary confinement. 5)Several studies have shown that Solitary confinement can cause individuals to develop mental health issues if they have not already had them when they ended up in solitary. 6)This suggests that incarceration is not the most viable option if we are truly worried about the safety of the community since it is likely that the pedophiles who commit the less serious offenses may be released back to the community with other mental health issues on top of their pedophilia. 7)I also do not want pedophiles to be pumped with chemicals in order to correct their behavior; unless a full proven method has been developed and tested. 8)However, since it seems that we both agree that incarceration (i.e. removal from society) is an adequate response for pedophiles that commit a physical act against a minor it might be good to consider the possibility of developing a separate mental health facility for pedophiles that would both incapacitate them and offer them treatment. 9)The development of a facility specially made for pedophiles would allow us to both remove pedophiles from society while giving those who are willing the opportunity to address their pedophilic problems. 10)A separate facility would also prevent the possibility of comingling between normal offenders and pedophiles. 11)A separate facility may enhance the ability of offering treatment to pedophiles and encourage other pedophiles in the facility to engage in the treatment as well. 12)Separating the offenders would also decrease the violence against the pedophiles and would lower violence in other correctional facilities. 13)Removing the pedophiles while still offering them treatment would also prevent the families from taking justice into their own hands. 14)If a separate mental health facility can be developed to address the issues of pedophiles who are willing to engage in treatment (who can remain in the community with supervision) and at the same time hold those who pose a threat to the community then we are able to provide a solution to both of our concerns. 15)This is good for the victim, community, pedophile, and the overall system. 16)Therefore, pedophiles ought to be treated and incarcerated unless the crime involves the rape and/or murder of a child
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances

1)Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be incarcerated and not treated in all instances 2)Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. 3)Pedophilic crimes include: child sexual abuse, statutory rape, offenses involving pornography of children, child grooming with sexual nature, stalking, and indecent exposure which committed by an adult. 4) It"s not what you are but what you actually do physically what matters. 5) A child is unable truly understand in what is going on during a sexual act. 6) Children unable truly agree to a sexual act with an adult. 7) An act is not considered to be a rape when: a sexual act is consensual, which means that both people who are old enough to consent, have the capacity to consent, and both agreed to the sexual contact. 8) Children are defenseless and powerless against an adult. 9) Any sexual act which involves a child is considered to be a rape. 10) Incarceration of pedophiles prevents his/her further assault on children. 11) Recidivism extremely high among child molesters 12) Once convicted, Pedophiles should not be given the chance to strike again 13) When someone has crossed that boundary between Desire & Action, they are eligible for all the consequences deemed. 14) Prison is the least and most unsafe place to put the pedophiles at this moment which is unfortunate for them. 15) But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile act on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. 16) Whether sexually attracted or not is not important, the act itself must be punished. 17) Argument that a treatment is the most correct form of dealing with pedophiles are incorrect. 18) If pedophilia is inborn mental illness, then it cannot be cured, although there may be some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment which is learned, and therefore can be unlearned. 19) By placing pedophiles into treatments rather than incarceration will bring the level of violence down in the prison world. 20) Pedophiles who belong to the "classic type," and are attracted only to prepubescent children, usually under age 11, often don't change their focus. 21) Sexual preferences of adult cannot be changed by therapy, only temporarily suppressed. 22) All degrees of pedophilia are treatable but not cureable with chemicals and Psychological treatment 23) Chemicals are only repressing urges of a pedophile and not changing their sexual interests from children to adults. 24) Chemical treatments from pedophilia are not all good for the person who is treated. --------------------------- Therefore persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be incarcerated and not treated in all instances. Non-Controversial 4-13, 15-17, 19, 23 Controversial: 18,20,21,25,