BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is being Transgender a mental disorder? (No means it is not

no one HAS to accept that life style. It's their right. So here we go: yes, being transgender is a mental disorder. And a clear sign of the degradation of society, when persons perpetuate their mental illness. It is called "Disorder of assumption". Simply put, it means a person cannot accept their true biological nature. Johns Hopkins university has done a multitude of studies by the way, it is biologically impossible to completely become a man or woman. That's just a scientific fact. You can dress up and do all the cosmetics you want. everyone wants "rights" and "acceptance" of transgender, but what about the woman in the restroom who does not want a man dressed as a woman in there? Any other person, would go to jail. Your argument is.... Acceptance. That is not an argument. You are demanding that society accept something that is an abomination and completely against normal human behavior. WE are not the odd ones. Do I hate transgender people? No. But our children should NEVER have to be subjected to having a member (Truly of the opposite sex) in areas where you have a right to privacy, and a right to not be the subject of predators.
Shakespeare was a FRAUD 2

Pro makes sensible and plausible but unsubstantiated suggestions, Concerning William Shakespeare's possible shortcomings. Suggestions are merely suggestions though and as such are not really debunkable, Nor do suggestions conclusively prove anything. "Shakespeare was a fraud". This is a definitive statement and Pro's conjecture is far from definitive and rife with uncertainty. Therefore Pro has come nowhere near proving that William Shakespeare was a fraud. Therefore all that I need to do: Is suggest that, Given what is already widely accepted and despite all of his possible shortcomings William Shakespeare was probably not a fraud.
Shakespeare was a FRAUD 2

" And Pro's arguments are plausible and sensible but nonetheless unproven. " - I have provided clear proof that Shakespeare was not educated enough to write his plays, Shakespeare's hand writings was poor and inconsistent, And that there was a clear motive for someone to fake the persona, All of which points you have yet to debunk. " And therein lies the inherent problem with conspiracy theories. " - While the majority of conspiracy theories are crazy and baseless, This theory actually has sufficient evidence to back it up. Just simply stating that its a conspiracy theory there fore it's wrong is NOT a valid argument. "And by their own admission Pro does not know. " - Not true, I stated that I did not know WHO wrote Shakespeare which isn't the topic of the debate. I have stated numerous times that the debate is on whether or not Shakespeare was a fraud, Not on who wrote Shakespeare.
Shakespeare was a FRAUD 2

" Why the deception? " - While I do not know for sure, From what Ive gathered the most plausible answer would be this, Poets and play writers at this point in history weren't seen highly of and were viewed as " peasant jobs". Therefore my guess would be someone of nobility wanted to be a play writer however couldn't do so do to social pressures. Because of this the person created the fake persona of " Shakespeare" and hired someone whom could act the part, Likely someone of the poor social class and whom was an actor. Shakespeare checked all of these boxes and therefore likely didn't write his plays but simply was hired to act like he did. " If not Shakespeare then who? " - I have no idea whom wrote Shakespeare and I doubt it will likely ever be solved, What I do know however is that Shakespeare couldn't have and didn't write his plays. " Maybe Shakespeare was an idiot savant. " - This was likely true, Shakespeare didn't have a proper college education and grew up in the slums. This also explains the sloppiness and inconsistencies in his hand writing. To conclude, While I do not know who exactly wrote Shakespeare, What I do know is that their large amount of doubt in my mind that Shakespeare wrote his own work.
Shakespeare was a FRAUD 2

I would like to say for the record that I am not normally a conspiracy theorist believer in fact I despise many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. However this is the first conspiracy theory I've seen that has sufficient evidence and shear facts to back it up. So without any further a do I will be explaining why I believe Shakespeare didn't write his plays. - There is no documented proof that Shakespeare attended a college, While I do realize that he could have learned to write in grammar school, However a man who invented 1, 700 words and used over 29, 000 words in his writings, Higher than any writer in history, Should at-least have a college education? - Shakespeare's settings in his plays are normally centered around royal families or nobles however as we know Shakespeare was very poor and most likely knew little to nothing about royal life. While you could make the argument that his father was a bailiff and that he could have had royal friends, However there is only so much you can learn from simply talking to these people this is like saying I can become a lawyer just from having lawyer friends. Furthermore the knowledge Shakespeare had was too vast for someone with just a grammar school education, To give you some perspective Shakespeare had a vast amount of knowledge on philosophy, Court etiquette, Royal life, Italy, And the English language. - Shakespeare's will mentions nothing about his plays, Poems, Or sonnets. I mean surely a man wrote that many plays and poems would at least mention what he wanted to do with his 18 unfinished plays right? Guess not apparently. I have however heard the argument that Shakespeare simply didn"t mention his unfinished plays due to him being " embarrassed" by them. However if this was the case then Shakespeare would have specifically asked for the plays to be destroyed or be locked away from the public. Another common counter argument I hear brought up is that Shakespeare was ill and simply wasn"t thinking clearly, However what I find hard to believe is that Shakespeare had time to divy up money between his family and to divvy up his prized possessions but mention nothing of his plays or poems. - Shakespeare"s handwriting and spelling were sloppy and inconsistent, Surely a man who invented nearly 2, 000 words and used nearly 30, 000 words would have decent spelling and decent handwriting? - The Bottom Line is that Shakespeare's writings were inconsistent, His spelling was horrible, And the education he had would be insufficient to write his work using the language and words that he used. While I am not sure who wrote Shakespeare's plays, What I am sure of is that Shakespeare couldn"t have written his plays or poems.
Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion.

But yo??? i would know what's what in this religion!!!! Go to a meeting once in a while!!! There is a huge assembly hall near where you claim to live..... Go talk to one of those people on the street corner once in a while!!! I'll bet you that they will avoid conversion about the guy that started the religion in the first place.. Why because he is the guy that could profisy when the end was coming and when the end didn't come what happened to all the idiots that sold their cars, bought land they couldn't afford, and just enslaved themselves to debt because they followed the original JW..... I really want people to focus on what i'm trying to say 'cause I'm not good at all this new debate stuff.... So please when voting try to focus on my main points!!!!! 1. WITNESSES ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS 2. JW'S ARE AGAINST ALL OTHER RELIGIONS AND THINK THAT IF THEY QUIT THEIR JOBS TO GO TO A MEETING THAT THEY'LL BE BLESSED FOR ETERNITY 3.JW'S ARE AGAINST EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER SEE COLLEGE FUNDING GO TO THE MAIN COMPANY IN NEW YORK NOT TO HARVARD OR FSU!!!!!! thanks to my opponent and all voters!!!!!!!!!!!
Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion.

Okay dude obviously you haven't had any experience with these people at all. I've been forced to go to their 'meetings' for 14.5 years of my life!!! I think I would know what the heck I'm talking about. Infact if my mom finds out what i'm doing I'm grounded from the computer for a month. Immediately when i mention that I wanna invite a friend over from school my mom says no, why because none of my friends are JW's. My mom thinks she's protecting me from Satans clutches but in case my opponent didn't know people are raped inside the walls of their places of worship. Infact one of the elders was on the FBI's most wanted list for child molestation. Furthermore, they are completely against gays and education. They see gay and bi people as an abomination of god or rather as a disease that must be cured at once. Otherwise you aren't in the religion. But being bi or gay isn't a freakin' disease that can be cured..... So they commit hate crimes!!! And as far as religion goes they would rather see you give the company in New York your college funding then see you succeed in a future that will get you somewhere in life.. So until you can tell me what grounds you have to debate me then try to come up with some good arguments dude.... Thanks for accepting this debate though yo!!!!!!
Song Debate

Accepted, if I may add / modify the rules:Rules:1. The First Round is for acceptance.2. In Round 2-4, we both post a song through a youtube link. That song is of your choosing.3. In Round 5, we both post two songs through video squares.4. The voters vote based on which songs are better unless spelling & grammar is bad or there is a forfeit. 5. No song may be played more than once.6. Parodies of a song count as different to the song itself.7. All parodies of a single song count as a single song.
if you were alone with someone, n there no way to get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

"so it sounds like we both agree, that killing and eating the other person would be permissible if it meant a firm probabbility [sic] of that person to be able to continue on and survive?" We do appear close to an agreement, but there is one important distinction, that of permission. It is the difference between consensual sex and rape or, in this case, assisted suicide and murder. "as long as it is 'significant', even if it doesn't seem that it would afterwards be probable they would survive" If neither person were to increase their probability of rescue then there would be no benefit from longer survival of either person. In fact, all that would result is either person would live out the remainder of their lives alone as opposed to with a companion. Without probable rescue and permission pro asserts undue harm still results, therefore the intentional death of another person would continue to be immoral. Murder does not become okay simply because no punishment would be meted out from an outside party.
if you were alone with someone, n there no way to get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

so it sounds like we both agree, that killing and eating the other person would be permissible if it meant a firm probabbility of that person to be able to continue on and survive? i would tend to think the person could merely extend his own life, at least as long as it is 'significant', even if it doesn't seem that it would afterwards be probable teywould survive. a whole human body to eat would almost surely allow one a significant amount of time to live. but i can very much see that a person might just say 'go down with the boat' and not try to take others down sooner than necessary. i think in terms of the heart of it all, con agrees with me, that it is not just inherently unjustifiable to ever kill and eat another person to survive.
if you were alone with someone, n there no way to get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

"u [sic] can morally kill an [sic] eat that person" I think we may have gotten a bit off track in this debate and I believe this is why, morality is a nebulous term and the definition of it is paramount. Also, I will assume from here on out that dehydration would not be an issue as I feel adding such a caveat would be a red herring. In order to move forward allow me to propose a working definition, to allow the least amount of harm. Harm, of course, can be defined differently depending on the values and goals of each party defining it. This, however, is not an acceptable rationale for ignoring the subjective opinion of another person. Taking into account what others consider to be harmful is a necessary consideration in calculating "the least amount of harm". Put another way, what constitutes harm would necessarily include all definitions of harm, not just the definition of the person considering the course of action. Pro asserts that my view on killing in this case is based on practicality. I assert practicality is fundamental to determining morality. Morality dictates the killing could not take place unless a rescue became sufficiently probable after I had killed and consumed the other person, as there must be sufficient benefit to counter the harm of killing them. If, however, rescue was not sufficiently probable then the only moral act would be for both people to die of starvation, unless one person volunteered to be killed or both parties agreed to kill each other in order to reduce suffering. In conclusion, there is not a simple yes or no answer, but a suite of potential scenarios which would sway the balance between benefit and harm. In the end a subjective consensus would need to be reached between both parties in order for any action to be considered a moral course of action.
if you were alone with someone, n there no way to get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

con posits that it's only moral to eat another when they die of natural causes, or volunteers. then con goes on to say that the other person shouldn't be killed, given the details do not necessarily lend itself to making a difference. con almost seems to be rubbing against himself, in that if the situation lent itself to being able to survive by eating the other, it might seem to be legit to do it, but he first says you can't at all. perhaps he's saying "it wouldn't work anyway" is all he's trying to say. i think the details are sufficient to say that perhaps the eating the other person might make a difference in survival. i could have structured the scenario as 'no end in clear sight.... but with food, there could be and perhaps probably would be'. i think my lack of giving the extra detail is inconsequenctial, as it should be assumed it could make a difference, and at any rate, trying to survive longer is merit enough in and of itself. con concludes by again almost acting as if the only real reason you souldn't kill, is because of practical concerns. i question whether con is against it intrinsically. but, when it's die or kill, all rules no longer apply. why do we not kill? there's often no reason to. we want to propagate our species in general. in extreme cases, though, you have to propagate your own self first. it's the natural law. even animals are known to eat their young when they are starving. not because they are brutes, but because the natural order understands that there's no point letting another live when you both might die. i would guess this phenomonen happens even between species and not involving the young, who might be viewed as lost causes to begin with.
if you were alone with someone, n there no way to get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

Thank you for creating this discussion, I look forward to debating with you. Given the fact that you have not specified how the first round should be carried out, I will go ahead and jump into it. I believe that it is highly immoral to kill an individual for the purpose of food without a clear cause. I will take this time to point out that I have no objections to the use of humans for food, I only object to the act of murder in this case. In other words, if one of the individuals died due to exposure or willingly allowed himself to be used as food, I would have no objection. Pro has stated that in this extreme circumstance, the normal rules for killing a human being do not apply. I disagree, and assert that the rules for killing a non-combative human being still apply. Pro has stated that there is no way to obtain food, and that there is no clear end in sight. I will assume that access to clean water is questionable, given that the hypothetical takes place on a deserted island (surrounded by salt-water presumably) or in the desert (where water is scarce). I will assume that the average human being can survive for 3-6 days without water in average conditions. Therefore, water would be the limiting resource in these scenarios, and the need for water would outweigh the need for food significantly (humans can last several weeks without food in average conditions). In these conditions, killing another human being would not do much to alleviate the survivors need to access to water. It it true that eating the human would provide limited water, but this effect would be countered by the digestion and excretion processes. Beyond the issue of water loss, killing a human brings with it several immediate deleterious effects. By killing the other person, the survivor has lost half the manpower that can be used to gather supplied. Another human being could allocate work towards attempting to fish (island), scavenging, building shelter, or trying to find additional resources. Moreover, putting two minds together increases the odds of survival, because of the above mentioned benefits. The irrationality in killing another human being leads directly into the immorality of killing the other person. After all, if there is no clear benefit to be had from killing another human being, then that action is unnecessary.
New Zealand should change their national anthem

If I seemed racist sorry but i'm stating that its here to remind us of our past and the battles that happened in order to defend and help NZ. Parts of our anthem are also kind of well known. Also as to your appealing to all people as shown in the line "Men of ev'ry creed and race, Gather here before Thy face," In simple English All men from every creed and race gather here. Even if religion is the slight minority many people are religious enforced by the fact we have a place named Christ-Church. The anthem is still representative in ways about our life. For example the line "God defend our free land" is highlighting the fact that NZ as a nation is free. The anthem isn't outdated most of it is praying for a better land such as lines like "Peace, not war, shall be our boast" its mostly praying that NZ becomes a peaceful plentiful land.
New Zealand should change their national anthem

The anthem may be traditional but it should represent our country as we are now. The world has changed, our country has changed and so our anthem should change. It symbolises what NZ used to be, not what we are now. An anthem is something that represents our country and we should keep up with the current times. The anthem was written by an Irish immigrant, someone who wasn't even part of our country. How does that reflect our country? As for the British Christians, yes they were a factor, but again the anthem doesn't reflect our country today and, just like our flag, that means it only reflects our country's invaders, not the original people of this land. It has got a verse in the Maori language, but the Maori have their own gods, and, like I said in my first argument, if we are to include some minorities we must include all of them. And how would it anger traditional Maoris? It was written by someone who wasn't part of this country and does not mention their gods. Wouldn't they want these two things to change? And as for angering them being a bad idea, where is your proof of this? I hear a hint of racism.
New Zealand should change their national anthem

After watching the Commonwealth Games and hearing New Zealand's national anthem many times, I realised more and more that it does not reflect our country, mainly in religious ways. Even the title, 'God Defend New Zealand', I believe, does not represent our country properly. Not even 45% of our country is Christian, and this has been decreasing for at least the past 20 years. More than half of our country isn't even religious, so why are there so many references to god in our national anthem? I think it should be changed to something that better reflects who we are as a country. Christians and religious people as a whole are in the minority of the country. If we are to include one minority we must include all of them. Others include Satanists and Jedis. Religion is not forced upon us in this country, but the national anthem is making it seem this way. We have a history and should be proud of it, rather than falling back on god to defend us. I'm not saying that the tune of our anthem is changed, but the lyrics definitely. We are a strong nation and we can defend ourselves, whether god exists or not, although I believe the latter.
New Zealand should change their national anthem

I'm not saying religion is forced i'm stating its popular and part of our history. One could argue that a countries history defines it. For example the american civil war and the war for independence shaped and defined america. Even if we changed it we wouldn't put much on it as our more memorable feats were in the past. And I must re-iterate the lyrics still remain true. Even if its choice to believe the fact is that religion is still big in New Zealand and still plays a part in our current society. Also the anthem isn't hard to read the lyrics are simple and old English isn't hard. In a way our anthem is iconic whenever we are participating in for example something like the rugby world cup people recognize us by things such as our Anthem and our Haka. The Anthem is iconic and therefore should not be changed as for the reasons stated above.
New Zealand should change their national anthem

You say its here to remind us of our past and battles, and maybe it should have some history in it as well as what our country is now. But are there any references to specific wars in our anthem? No. Its filled with all these lyrics that no one even understands and it has old English language. And you say that many people are religious enforced because we have a place named Christchurch but firstly I don't think that would make people religious because we have a place with religious references in its name, and it certainly hasn't influenced me, and secondly, that makes it sound like religion is forced on New Zealanders. We are a free country and religion is not forced on us but our anthem is making it seem that way. Yes I agree with your point that we should highlight the fact that New Zealand is a free country in our anthem, but why can't we remove the word god from this lyric? We are a free country, as I said before and we are allowed to have our own beliefs. And we shouldn't have to pray for a better land, we can make a change ourselves and make a better land.