BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America/Canada should ban transgenderism.

Hey, It is my first debate on this site as well! I really just want to improve my skills in debate, So thank you for debating with me! Anyways, Time to get on with our debate. . . Your first point is saying that banning transgenderism would mean violating the American Constitution. You state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, Or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, And to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Now, Banning transgenderism does not directly violate any of these laws. It states that Congress can't make any law respecting an establishment of any religion. However, Transgenderism is not a religion, Technically. It is getting a bit close to a cultish religion, I admit, But it is not a formal and established religion. This means that we can ban it before it becomes an actual religion. There is some debate over whether it is one, But it was concluded with the majority saying it was not. Banning transgenderism also does not violate freedom of speech. I mean, Yes. If transgenderism does get banned people could technically say they are "transgender", As long as they actually aren't. This means that it does not violate freedom of speech. To further support this, Recently it was announced that in America, Transgender people weren't allowed to serve in the military. And again, Society does not need and should not need to spend money and make space for trans people, Just because it makes them feel better. Especially me, I am not going out of my way to call a transgender person by their assumed identity, But would rather just call them their real, True, Biological and given gender. And again, How does this transgenderism benefit our society other than making like, A few hundred people out of the entire population or America or Canada feel better? Also, I'm doing this partly for transgender people's good. Yes, They might initially feel better of themselves, But then they need to realize that everyday, The must act and try to behave like the gender they changed into. This causes not only stress in their life but in most cases, They cause depression and even suicide. On top of that, They will always get criticism, Which means they will always need to put up with people debating with them and/or rejecting them outright. So in the end, I am not only banning transgenderism for the society's good, But for the transgender people themselves good as well. Most people don't even consider these facts, Or would decide they will be easy to do. But they are not in the slightest. Again, Even in America, Transgender people aren't allowed to join the military, Partly because of the stress problems I mentioned previously.
America/Canada should ban transgenderism.

Hey, This is my first debate on this website. To begin, I agree with everything you say except the part about making a law to ban it. I believe that yes, It is crazy to be a transgender. Just because I feel something, Does not mean I am that thing. Facts to care about your feelings. Making a law to ban transgenderism would go against the first amendment in the U. S. Constitution. It states: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, Or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, And to petition the government for a redress of grievances If somebody asked me for advice concerning transgender, I would STRONGLY encourage them to not be transgender for the reasons you mentioned. However, The amendment states the congress will make no law respecting freedom of expression. Thank you for starting this debate. Transgender has many issues with it.
America/Canada should ban transgenderism.

We should ban transgenderism. Since I live in Canada, And do not know the conditions of other countries very well, I would like to stick with Canada or America. We should ban transgenderism because it literally does not make sense! If you are a male, You are a male. If you sew the women's you-know-what onto you, You are still a male. You just have women body parts. Seriously, If someone breaks their arm completely in half(so it cannot regrow back) and gets a robotic arm, They are not called half-robot. Just because you call something a certain name doesn't mean it is. If I called you a dog, Do you magically become a dog? No, Because you cannot change yourself into a dog completely, Or in this case, You cannot change your gender. Males have their certain biological differences from women, And just because you sew something on you doesn't mean you turn into whatever has it. The idea that sex or gender is something can could be changed is scientifically not true. I am not going to modify basic biology so others can feel a bit more comfortable of their social status. For the entirety of history, Boy meant "boy" and girl meant "girl". Men and women are very different and are completely different things.
Ayn Rand was correct that self sacrifice (and even it's idea) destroys societies.

I’ll agree that it’s often difficult or not natural to place our desires above others. The problem is the few that do. They can take advantage of the rest of us in an extreme way cou*Trump/Putin*gh. A strong self-focus is also natural so the goal has to be a balance between the two. We can emphasize one over the other but self sacrifice itself is not at all helpful since the goal would be some negotiation between our own interests and those of others. Thinking about and being around other people can be a real challenge for me but it’s rewarding. That’s the real point here. When you’re drawing strength from your experiences with other people it’s just proof that together we are strong. Working together helps all of us but this is not a form of self sacrifice. It’s a form of cooperation. I think helping the elderly creates a system where you could get some help when you’ll need it toward the end. There’s a lot of wisdom and help there for the young talking with the elderly so it’s really just cyclical as you agreed. The problem is the suggestion that you should put someone else's needs above your own. The elderly, for instance, have invested a lot in culture and environment and we’re going to be like them some day so it just makes sense to help them creating a system where we receive the same help. The gain people can receive now is not about money. It’s about appreciating the people and the world around us. There’s not a sacrifice there it’s just an investment. People put a lot of time and energy to build something that ultimately helps them. The main problem is about putting yourself first over others which makes cooperation virtually impossible. - Cooperation just makes sense. Self-sacrifice and selfishness do not. We just have to accept our nature and deal with it as opposed to lying to ourselves or others about it.
Ayn Rand was correct that self sacrifice (and even it's idea) destroys societies.

I've been wondering as to how I can approach this debate; and have just decided to write this: I believe that self-sacfrice is a significant benefit society, and I hold it true that there's a scientific basis for this argument. As humans (and this may be controversial), we are not naturalistically inclined to be thoroughly selfish or to place our feelings and desires before others; especially those whom we form close attachments to, and feel love towards. When we do commit selfish acts, it generally hurts other people, and it distorts our sense of self--selfishness has the power to destroy not only those around us, but actually, ourselves as well. To achieve real progression and enlightenment, self-sacrifice has to be involved. And it's usually when you think of other people (like those you are close to) that this becomes easier. They serve as inspiration; you think of them being proud and happy, and experiencing joy instead of sadness--and that guides you through. When you're struggling to study to get a good result for an exam, you have to think of your family, in addition to the place that getting a good result will eventually get you to; in studying, you are sacrificing other forms of so-called 'enjoyment'; like going out, getting intoxicated, taking drugs, and just generally doing things that other people your age might be doing. And when your family require assistance with something (like elderly relatives), you help them--because that's the right and selfless thing to do. The truth is that every deed we do in life, usually has some kind of cyclical effect; if we do something negative, it likely will result in more negativity, but if we do something good/positive, another good thing will, in all probability, usually come out of it. Self-sacrifice is really about doing things that help others and thus (as a by-product effect) yourself in the long-term; in life, you will find that putting other people's feelings before your own (within reason, naturally) will create happiness. Where selfishness breeds disappointment, selflessness breeds contentment. As with all the best things, it requires discipline, but when a person exercises that discipline--it becomes easier. To understand my argument in the broader context; think of people who initiate or participate in voluntary work and activities for either for their community or abroad, such people clearly aren't doing so for financial gain, as many get lose out financially themselves, rather--they are doing it because they wish to make things easier for people; they are giving their precious time and resources to aid other people, for no apparent reason, but to help them. This is a form of self-sacrifice, and is something that helps general society and the world overall a great deal.
Should The U.S stay With The English System

If we convert to the metric system we would be able to convert easily in other countries. We would be used to the metric so it would not be so confusing to convert . The united states should switch to the metric system because, we already use it, It is easier to learn and understand and , it reduces confusion with other countries. the metric system is much simpler and easier to understand. I also find it much better than learning both. It makes sporting events like swimming awkward because while everyone swims in meters, we swim in yards.The metric system is much more logical than the English system. It was designed to be a simple method based on the power of 10. At this point, constantly converting units is silly and inefficient when there is an internationally understood and obviously superior way to measure what we need to measure. It is a lot easier to convert with the metric system. Conversions between metric units involve adding zeros or moving commas. There are no calculations involved, no fractions and the results are exact. Powers of ten are easily taught and learned. They're so easy elementary students master them in the third grade while American students struggle with fractions through countless years. The rest of the world uses it.Almost every country in the world, seeing the unit system's obvious superiority over others, have switched to metric.
All Humans Have Faith In Something (Atheists, Theists and Everyone Else)

Looks fun, I'll accept.Framework:As the con, I will be arguing against Pro's statement that "Atheists, Theists and anyone in between all have faith in some great truth"[1]. My opponnent will have the burden of proof in the round to prove that as a an atheist, I have faith in some great truth. As he states that all humans have faith in a greater truth, his inability to prove that I have faith in a greater power will result in a failure in his burden of proof, and he will lose the debate.[3]As my opponent has not provided any definitions, I will list the definitions for the round.Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence[2]Truth: A statement proven to be or accepted as true[4]I tried to find a definition for "greater", but it took me to a list of DnD powers and something to do with cities. If the Pro cannot provide a suitable definition, we'll just rely on the connotation.Connotation: An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing [5]As the pro, I'll allow him to make the opening arguments. Here's looking forward to a good debate :)Works cited:1.) http://www.debate.org...2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3.) http://rationalwiki.org...4.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...5.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
All Humans Have Faith In Something (Atheists, Theists and Everyone Else)

Atheists, Theists and anyone in between all have faith in some great truth. For Christians it is God. For some atheists it is the existence of physical laws and gravity without origin. In the end, I contend, that everything comes back to a belief that you cannot prove and is equally faith-based. Some Atheists call Theists irrational or foolish. Some Theists say the same thing about Atheists. I agree with both. If believing in something you can't prove is 'irrational' then we, as humans, are all equally irrational.I look forward to the debate.
Abortion

Unfortunately my opponent didn't post in the last round so I don't have much to respond to that I haven't already talked about. So I will try to briefly sum up my views and opinions on this issue. I believe that we as a nation are supporting politically, and financially the process of murder through abortion. I also think this is immoral for us to do as a country. Whenever a country decides that some life doesn't matter it doesn't work out well (think Nazi germany and the Jews). We have been told it's about choice, it's not. I support people having the right to choose in 95% of circumstances, however you do not have the right to murder someone just because you have the "choice". The medical evidence is clear that the fetus is a human being. It has it's own heart, own brain and own DNA. It is human life and deserves to have the same protections that all the rest of us enjoy. Think about the potential that has been lost because of abortion. Think about all the Steve Jobs we lost, or the Walt Disney's who never got a chance at life. It is horrible the amount of human potential that we have destroyed through this horrible process. I ask for all good people of good conscience to put politics aside, and fight for life against the lie that is abortion. Thank you all for your time.
Abortion

I accept.I suppose I am meant to state my main points too though?My main points will be this:1) Banning abortion both increases highly damaging back-alley abortions as well as increasing the stress placed on women, only, without placing any on males.2) Abortion is the only method by which someone who wants to pass on their DNA but can't charm someone or afford a surrogate to produce a child. Rapists tend to be psychopathic and the tendency to be psychopathic is hereditary. 3) When the child appears conscious and/or independent of the mother to a significant enough degree it then becomes murder to kill it. Until then it is no more than a parasite to the mother's body.
Abortion

Hello! I am semi new to this debate website so bear with me. I would like to debate someone who is for abortion. First round is acceptance. Second round is opening arguments third round is rebuttal fourth round is closing arguments My argument will have a few main points. 1) Abortion in the second and third trimester is wrong and should be illegal. 2) Abortion after 10 weeks (heartbeat) is murder of a child, a human being and infringes on it's legal rights given to it in the Declaration of independence, and the Constitution. 3) This argument is only about abortion without cases or rape/incest, or mothers life in danger. Those situations create a separate set of moral circumstances that most people agree allow for abortion. 4) Murder of the innocent is wrong. 5) The fetuses are innocent. 6) Therefore Murder of fetuses is wrong. 7) The Government should not fund abortion because it is morally wrong, and government shouldn't give money to organizations that the constitution doesn't give them the right to give money to. 8) just because the supreme court decides something is moral doesn't make it moral. For example the Dred Scott decision In advance thank you for accepting. JN
3 men 1 hammer should not be online

My conclusion will be short since Pro was unable to offer one. The video in question is indeed disturbing. In a country where citizens are asked to vote on lawmakers and must sit on juries so as to decide the fate of criminals, a true picture of crime is needed to allow for the most informed voters. This video does so in striking fashion. I offered Pro an opportunity to use a cost/benefit analysis to weigh the object of my concern, informed citizenry, verses one of people using the video for entertainment purposes. She did not do this. As Pro she had a burden that, without her final round, she could not meet.
3 men 1 hammer should not be online

, I agree upmostly this video is very disturbing and shows the worst sort of mentality a human can ever have,Now these Ukranian men were not just " killers" they were tortures highly disturbed and probably lacked self motivation and self esteem. Con"s argument is that this video should have its avaliability online as it shows people the "sheer depravity" humans ar capable of thinking, i have no doubt con that this is true, but also by watching the video and suggesting it to friends is purely giving the killers some sort of descrete credibility for their actions as lets face this logically thats exactly why they recording their Killing. Con also explains this vide gives chance for people to be aware of what punishment they could face and to feel remorse with the police on what they have to deal with. Whilst they are all true they give no real justification why people are so fascinated by this video , thus suggesting it to friends and slightly exploiting it for they"re own entertainment. Pros Position. I do believe this video has and is being used for entertainment purposes for the fact if you look on youtube there is various videos Looking at peoples " reactions" some whom may be intrigued some who may have a strong stomach and not think much of the video at all. Please dont get it wrong i can understand that Curiosity leads people to watch this video but for people who are ecspecially sensitive it can cause alot of disturbing memories not to mention the shear sadness and pain this video is causing to the victims Famiy, knowing people worldwide have watched their son, father, uncle brutualised on camera without being able to defend Himself. Also they're is no true limits on who can copyright this video now there is many wesbites offering the same video with the advantage of having various chatrooms thus making money out of these horrific killers. I ask Con why we need that video online to give people a perspective of how crime is really done ? , why do we need to watch this video ? apart from curiosity i have no other reasons. Me being a true liberal , i don't condone the death penality is any way but i truely believe this video will make people have a skeptic view on capital punishment. CONCLUSION I am aware of where my opponent is coming from but he/she hasn't give me any real justification other than curiosity and minimal knowledge on crime and punishment why this video should still be online ? , Its horrific and disturbing its exploiting the victim and the victms familes, and although it may not be on purpose it IS giving the ukranian killers advantage of having an audience whether god or bad. I stand clear on my position and thank my opponent for the intresting argument. Vote Pro! . . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.youtube.com...
3 men 1 hammer should not be online

Firstly for the people who don"t know, 2 men 1 hammer is horrific, namelessly the most disturbing video to be ever leaked online, I will post post the link as i advise if you want to watch it to look it up on Google , i Highly advise you did"t unless you have a very strong stomach. These two Ukrainian men brutalized and subjected many people to unthinkable torture, Including animals, pregnant women etc. My argument is that this video is unsuitable and it should have never been leaked online giving the killers the credibility of haing an audience. Thank you.
Morality is subjective.

Here are my arguments: 1. Comparison to Other Subjective Ideas: Morality, in comparison, is very much like other subjective concepts (like love, beauty, meaning, etc), and very unlike objective concepts (like math, physical traits, etc). 2. Lack of Verification Any system of objective truth has a widely-held method of verification or falsification. But morality does not have such a method. 3. Felt, Not Calculated Moral values are commonly intuited, and not calculated (as they would be if they were objective). A vital note: we may WANT our moral values to be objective (since that would make them authoritative and beyond dispute). But being 'important' or 'sure' is not the same as being 'objective'.
Morality is subjective.

A trim debate (low word limit), for an admittedly too-broad topic. I will be arguing that morality is fundamentally subjective. Debate format will be: 1. Acceptance. 2. Basic arguments (no rebuttals) 3. Rebuttals. Definitions: Objective: Based in the object, rather than the subject, of the object-subject relationship. Factual regardless of personal feeling or emotion. Verifiable by strict, widely-held standards of verification. Subjective: Based in the subject, rather than the object. Reliant on personal feeling. Without widely-held standards of verification.
Morality is subjective.

Rebuttals to my opponent's Round 2: 1. Asserting that concepts like love, beauty, meaning, etc., are subjective begs the question. If value is objective, then these concepts may have a basis in fact. 2. I have provided an argument as verification. 3. I have not appealed to intuition. Rebuttals to my opponent's rebuttals: 1. My opponent has not addressed my argument, he has just asserted that there are other people who disagree with me. This is not a substantive response. 2. My opponent's claim that we have no objective obligation to be rational contradicts the fact that he is advancing arguments for his position. On his view, anyone can reject all of his arguments out of hand, since reason is a subjective preference.
Morality is subjective.

Thank you for the opening arguments!My brief rebuttals:1. My opponent argues that "morality is based on life" and that all living things must follow a specific course of action. However, this is contradicted by the many moral systems that advocate self-sacrifice. A good example would be pacifists who refuse to use arms to defend themselves or their families.2. My opponent says "Any argument for moral subjectivism must assume that we have an objective obligation to be rational", but I would contend that this is not true: we have no objective obligation to be rational. Rationality is very useful, but we are not morally obligated to follow it. An irrational person is not necessarily an immoral person.
Morality is subjective.

I contend that morality is objective. 1. Morality is based on life. All living things face the alternative of staying alive or passing out of existence. This alternative forces each living thing to follow a specific course of action, which is determined by its nature. The nature of man is such that he must use reason to define principles to live by, which are the principles of morality. 2. Any argument for moral subjectivism must assume that we have an objective obligation to be rational - otherwise, there would be no reason to care about arguments. But if we are objectively obligated to be rational, then there are objective moral values. I can easily account for this obligation, since on my view we must be rational to live (see 1 above).