BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pansexuality isn't a real sexuality

When I said a combination of both genders I meant being born with both reproductive parts not some think where you think that you are a woman and a man even though you were born as a man. You said anything you are attracted to is your sexuality. So based off of that thinking how would a pansexual person know if someone is agender or intersex by just looking at them? They would either look like a man or a woman. Therefore making them attracted to men and woman, like a person who is bisexual. Someone who says that they are agender or intersex still has the reproductive part that they were born with unless they got surgery, but if you didn't get that far how would you even know that a person is another gender without them telling you? So when you see someone and you say "That person is cute," without knowing them that would only make them attracted to a male or a female. Also you didn't answer my question about the fact that this is basic biology where you can only be a male, a female, or be born with both reproductive parts. Its true, if you ask any scientists then they would say that. Unless you present some hard evidence that, that is not the case then my opinion will not change. (p.s. It says when you type agender, intersex, or pansexual, it says its spelled wrong, so it is still popular belief that these aren't real things.)
Pansexuality isn't a real sexuality

Anything you are attracted to is your sexuality. So, yes, you could even be cowsexual, attracted to cows. And intersex is a proven gender, which you admitted to, opposite of your previous statement. There is also agender, not identifying with female or male. Whether or not you believe this to be a real gender, it is one that only a pansexual would be attracted to. It hasn't been popular or heard about before because being gay at all used to be completely taboo. No one would make up a sexuality, knowing they would be discriminated against.
Pansexuality isn't a real sexuality

First of all if you knew about biology then you would know that there are only two genders, technically three, which is just a mix of both though. They fact that people think they are something else is purely in your mind. And there is such thing as a fake gender. I could say that I am a helicopter attracted to cows. Do you think that's real? No I just made it up because it's a FAKE SEXUALITY. Where is the science behind this sexuality? Many people hadn't even heard of this until recent years. It was popularized by people who wanted to feel special and be unique.
Pansexuality isn't a real sexuality

Actually, there are a number of genders. This includes, but is not limited to, agender, bigender, genderfluid, and intersex. A pansexual person could be attracted to any of these, where a bisexual is only attracted to male and female. And anyway, is there really evidence of any sexuality? There is just as much evidence of pansexuality as there is any other sexuality. And there is no such thing as a fake gender. A person is whatever gender they identify as, regardless of popular standards.
Kids shouldn't wear uniforms to school

.. arguments. I will now keep mine arguments short. My opponent says there is a rule that says kids aren't allowed to wear inappropriate clothing, but do kids always follow the rules? Also, with uniforms, the kid is dressed neater, and it looks like they actually care about personal hygiene. Also, since most uniforms require you to dress nice, and dressing nice is a sign of self respect, uniforms show respect. Thank you.
The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

This debate has truly been hilarious. I believe my opponent is either incapable of, or simply unwilling to apprehend the structures on which this engagements rests. In closing, I can only call the voter's attention to the fact that all arguments rest on logical structures; that no matter how lofty or abstract a concept/construct, it must be put forward and held in good faith for the (at least for duration of the debate). Con however has undertaken to score a cheap victory by making an affirmative claim about a 'spiritual' being, positioning himself in opposition, and then pulling the rug out from under the claim by attacking its truthfulness... We all know that truth, validity, and soundness are those bases on which arguments are judged. Bearing this in mind, any person who puts forth a claim whose veracity they do not intend to uphold or defend (for the time being) damages his credibility and, in the case that it is his initial claim, voids the argument entirely. Con has gone from stating outright that assertions do not presuppose the truth of the specific content being asserted. That we don't read/apprehend sentences from left to right, or that there is no contexual understanding inherent in syntax...all in an effort to discredit what he put forward! My goal has been to draw attention to his assumption that because he chose to argue against his claim, he thought he wouldn't be held to it...lol. But he's bound to same rules of engagement in both instances. For a claimant to affirm a belief in the the actions of a supernatural entity then say that entity doesnt exist is a 'turn'. If he couldve argued without contradicting the original claim, it wouldve been a spectacular debate!!! It really becomes painfully to demonstrate the logic/good faith behind parts of speech and communication as a whole, which is why we would like to have debates that didn't attempt to distort our tacit understanding of that very communication. So I apologize for those who felt a little bogged down from the pedantry... I will say that its been entertaining to watch him trying to wriggle out of it. Thanks to all who review and vote...
The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

Thank you for your response.... I'll admit that its cracking me up how the points barely touch... My apologies, I haven't overlooked your argument/case, but rather maneuvered around it, because your presuppositions put forth in the phrase 'did the biblical god create earthly life?' make any discussion of the origin of the actual earth (a commonly debated topic) irrelevant to this argument. Here's why (I think anyway) To begin a question with 'did the biblical god', one must presuppose the existence of a biblical god and his ability to act (the 'did' part). So you concede the existence of this biblical god by merely putting him forth as an agent in your initial question e.g, "Did mom move my skateboard?" Random, I know, but demonstrates that the question presupposes that mom exists and that she an agent/acts or does. The common attack would be to refute this presupposition, which would turn the debate into 'does god exist, prove it....(An even more common topic),and would result in us arguing the same side, but as I am to argue Pro, I have only to validate the claim/presupposition by running with what is already accepted, but no further, so The only way a biblical god, which we both accept exist (for the sake of our argument), can be substantiated, as an non-entity, is via an actual source ( the material book/bible) and material believers(Christians) who believe in the truth of this source. This is the only validation we can rationally/reasonably seek for an immaterial/non-physical entity. Of course what hasn't been explicitly stated is the component, belief, but luckily, the presupposition covers this as well.. So now all that remains is to validate the act of creating life on earth. If this biblical god does exist, we know that the only proof of his actions/deeds/works lies in the source (the book) Christians cite it as the authority for anything we need to know about the biblical god. So in we go, and find, that the bible (source no.1) states clearly that God, created all things (earth and life, included) in Genesis. So if we accept the presupposition that a biblical god exists, that the Bible is the only source/authority for substantiation (of his existence and his works) and that the followers believe this book to be the truth, we must accept that he did create earthly life... I know your aspirations for this Argument may have been quite different... But alas this if where my logic led. Thanks for your attention...
The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

You have specified a biblical god, i.e the non-material entity whose existence can only be substantiated/verified via the bible (the source of Christian belief) and the belief in the truth of the bible. the book of Genesis clearly states that God (the biblical one) created the heaven, earth plants animals and man over a period of days. Whether this account is real in an empirical sense is irrelevant, as the position of the argument (that a non-material being did or didn't do something) presupposes the validity of non-material beings. You can only refute the substantiating source (existence of the bible) or within the source (find a biblical conflict), or the belief in the truth of that source (one believer validates it). So yes, I do maintain that the biblical god created earthly life, just as I would maintain the specifics of the plot in a novel or movie.. Thank you for your attention...
The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

*No acceptance round; just start debating.*No round rules.ResolutionThe biblical god created earthly life.ProHas the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM that the biblical god created earthly life.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE that the biblical god created earthly life. *Definitions can be changed, before accepting, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree to the changes. Otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.Definitionsbiblical - of the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...created - brought something into existence.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...earthly - relating to the planet on which we live; the world.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth and reproduction.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Cannabis

Okay so I will lay down some of the measures of a good drug, in my opinion. (1) Health risk (long term) Cannabis, if eaten, vaporised or drank in tea has zero health effects. Smoking cannabis is not good for lungs so better to do it another way. However compared to alcohol, tobacco, e.c.t its health risks are minimum. Alcohol can be quite safe, but it must be drunk in small quantities, but cannabis you can get very high every night (bare in mind this is not counting the fact that you can have it in other ways) with less effects on your health. So it is possible to get as high as possible every night without any health effects (apart from if smoked), but if you got as drunk as possible every night you would be dead before a few weeks and you would have to be force fed. So cannabis wins for long term health hands down, I think you will agree. (2) Risk of overdose. Cannabis 0%. Alcohol causes poisoning and death is not rare, ecstasy, cocaine, heroin, legal highs all can result in death and again it is not rare. (3) Enjoyment well this is all subjective. Drink makes you confident and carefree, weed makes you conscious. Personally I prefer the consciousness, and it would seem fitting to me, for cannabis to be for the more sophisticated people rather than alcohol. For one inspires philosophical thought and the other encourages primitive, childlike behaviours. But this one is subject to the individual and I cannot argue this logically either way. (4)Side effects Sleepy, hungry, that's it. No matter how high you get you will not have any side effects bar feeling tired and possibly hungry. Once you fall asleep and wake up, you are back to normal. So you do not have to put days or nights aside for cannabis use, it is light and easy. Alcohol for instance has horrible severe side effects and long lasting pains. You wake up the next day and even though you got drunk LAST night, you feel crap all day! Its ridiculous. Acid, ecstasy, alcohol and cocaine all have long lasting side effects and once you have taken it you cannot do anything else until you have fallen asleep for 6 hours and woken up. And even then you will feel like crap. (5)peoples personality on the drug drunk people are unbearable, high people will have a deep conversation with you, and if you don't want to talk to them, they will leave you alone. They keep themselves to themselves, and take pleasure in things like documentaries, music, art or computer games. 80% of crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol, and you know what drunk people are like typically. (6)Productivity No known productivity of alcoholics, coke heads, speed ecstasy etc. Weed has been incredibly influential in most popular music, art and film. The founder of Apple smokes cannabis. John Lennon, Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix (all supported weed over alcohol) to name a handful. (7) Last point, weed is the only natural drug. All other drugs cannot be taken in the real world, they require farms and factories. Cannabis is ready made and available freely and naturally without chemical processors. That will be enough for now Oh yes, and weed is cooler than all the other drugs.
Please actually don't solve this riddle D:

"There is a man dead in a locked office, sitting at his desk. On the desk there are a couple of pieces of blank paper, a pen and a sealed envelope. The office is locked from the inside. No-one has directly killed him. How was he killed?" So there's paper an envelope and a pen. The office was locked. Was it his? Hmmm...well, we can assume that he was writing letters. He didn't hang himself since he was sitting. A heart attack would be too convenient. No one killed him DIRECTLY... Odd wording... Definition=Synonyms adverb. straight - immediately - direct - right - outright conjunction. immediately - once - as soon as So did he get murdered indirectly? Hmmm... The envelope is also specifically sealed... He was able to write a letter before he died. The papers are blank, so he didn't die while writing. Where am I going with this???? Holy fvck. What the hell is the answerrrr??? So he died after he wrote a letter and before he started a new one. Did he die when putting the letter in the envelope? No, because it was sealed. Did he die while he was sealing it? Was he gassed of something? Was he poisoned? I have no fvcking clue. Wait-bear with me- you lick an envelope to seal it, right? What if that was poisoned???? Holy crapoli, did I get it? Was the envelope horse glue poisoned???
Please actually don't solve this riddle D:

Bossy y u be so good at riddles? D:Third time is the charm. I'm going to stump this meal deal with anger management.Same rules. He gets one shot at the riddle. He gets it he wins. He doesn't and I win.The riddle is this:There is a man dead in a locked office, sitting at his desk. On the desk there are a couple of pieces of blank paper, a pen and a sealed envelope. The office is locked from the inside. No-one has directly killed him. How was he killed?
In the UK, for those who abort for social - NOT LIFE-THREATENING - reasons should pay.

Thank you for your response. "just stating the facts, which you correctly did ." Thank you for conceding that my scientific argument is valid. " karmic identity is transferred to another body." You have already conceded that at the point of inception there is no body to transfer to, if in fact such a strange thing was even possible or probable. This however has no bearing on your resolution about payment for abortions unless you can prove the above quote. "This karmic identity is not a physical thing" "scientists in this present day cannot prove it exists" That is convenient but it, along with your other religious claims will not stand up to the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." Scientist do not need to disprove it, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim. "The aim of all Buddhist practices....." This is all very interesting but has little to do with the actual debate resolution: In the UK, for those who abort for social - NOT LIFE-THREATENING - reasons should pay. "having an abortion because ...." Please provide some evidence to your spurious claims. No contraception is 100% reliable and it has been successfully argued that a termination in the first week is actually a safer form of contraception than taking medication for years. "I do not pity the poor ...." Some people are actually poor because they are less able to manage their lives, how will forcing an unwanted child upon them help? "The way that you responded to this comment implies....." I would be against any laws that are based on unsubstantiated religious nonsense or that limited a woman's right to self determine what she does with her own body. "What kind of monsters.... " The kind that force women to be breeding machines against their will.. "And since you are such a big fan of logic and rationalism (which is not healthy for the mind)" Thank you! I take that a a compliment!From my perspective your beliefs are very unhealthy. To this point my opponent has not addressed my arguments or rebuttals.Pro has focused on a lecture about Bhuddism and not evidenced in any way the resolution that was put forward: In the UK, for those who abort for social - NOT LIFE-THREATENING - reasons should pay. I asked if Pro was right to be offended, this has been ignored. My opponent has agreed that at the point of conception there is no body or consciousness. Pro has not provided proof any such spirit exists even less that it should be used as a reason to limit human rights. The BOP lies with Pro. So far I suggest no valid argument has yet been offered. I would thank my opponent for a thought provoking round. I have edited this doc due to the low word count available for this debate.
In the UK, for those who abort for social - NOT LIFE-THREATENING - reasons should pay.

Thank you for accepting my challenge. When you gave me that large chunk of scientific evidence on when a consciousness formed, I sat there in confusion for you completely missed and misunderstood my point. Believe me, I am a big science fan. Science is nothing to be disagreed about for it is just stating the facts, which you correctly did - you pointed out and explained to me when the brain starts thinking and develops a personality through experiences and opinions etc. However what I stated before about a consciousness being embodied into the body must have been vague for you to evidently misunderstand; I used that phrase to put it simply to you for you are not a Buddhist. Let me put my argument in another way. Buddhists believe that all beings are eternal and are all subject to change, therefore there cannot be any gods for they too would have flaws. We believe in karma and karmic identities NOT souls. When a being dies their karmic identity is transferred to another body at the moment of conception. This karmic identity is not a physical thing which is why scientists in this present day cannot prove it exists and this is also why it is not like a soul. It is also not like a soul because souls are fixed, permanent things whereas karmic identities are always subject to change. The aim of all Buddhist practices, including meditation, is prajna, or wisdom. The Buddha taught that the fundamental cause of human difficulties is our existential ignorance " our failure to understand the true nature of reality and wisdom is the opposite of this. To start with, we simply need to hear the teachings that indicate the Buddhist vision of life. Then we need to reflect on them and make sense of them in relation to our own experience. But prajna proper means developing our own direct understanding of the truth . By social reasons I mean having an abortion because you have too many kids already; or because you are pregnant with your ex's baby; or because you just don't want a child - all these things are caused by the stupidity and carelessness of not using contraception. I do not pity the poor who cannot afford an abortion because they were too irresponsible to use contraception. And you took my statement of :'no one has that sort of authority over someone's life' completely out of context. I meant by this that no one has the authority over someone's life to decide when and if they should die. The way that you responded to this comment implies that you are against any laws for they have the right to control people but ask yourself this: What would society look like without laws? What kind of monsters will we turn into if we turn to anarchy? And since you are such a big fan of logic and rationalism (which is not healthy for the mind) you will be glad to know that actually the Buddha's fundamental teachings are compatible with science. https://thebuddhistcentre.com...
In the UK, for those who abort for social - NOT LIFE-THREATENING - reasons should pay.

Many thanks for providing an interesting resolution to debate, my rebuttals may be fairly direct so please do not let this put you off your right to reply! I will start by challenging if in fact you are right as a Buddhist to be highly disturbed by the carefully considered, highly personal, deeply emotional & very private actions of many women that under go the three step process required in the UK to abort their pregnancy. At this point I will not contest your provided statistics however I would be keen to see there source. Whilst I would respect all religious points of view when they infringe on the rights of other we need to look coldly at what is being proposed. Pro has stated that it is believed that at the point of conception a consciousness is formed, this is something that Pro would not be able to prove and is as such as good as pure fiction. The evidence to date shows that the brain evolved in a compartmentalized fashion and it is the sum of certain parts of the brain working together that give the illusion of consciousness to use (1). Hence if parts of the brain are damaged, like in cases of stroke, the personality can be lost completely whilst other functions continue. This is the best evidence that there is no soul and that consciousness cannot exist without the brain developing to a certain stage of maturity, this is also evidenced in the stages of perception that develops as we grow from infants to adults. This is evidenced based research that is generally accepted to mean the a foetus can not be consciously aware, the components to be so do not exist. The potential may, but that is not relevant at that point in time as the woman has decided to halt development. It is futile to pursue this logic on a reason of potential, there is none. At this stage of development no consciousness exists to be destroyed therefore you should not be offended. You say that "social" whatever that means, I'm really not sure but it sounds quite offensive, abortions should be charged for. Presumably like a dentist visit or other product we purchase. I guess that the result you wish from this is to preserve "potential" life at the cost of removing the woman's choice, especially poorer women. Most women that can afford an abortion would already pay to go privately. You say "no one has that sort authority over someone's life" yet it appears however that you feel that you do have the right to control people, especially the poor to an alarming extent.1 . http://www.peterrussell.com...