BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
HOF Players that used Steroids

Hi Declanaitor. You can be in a HOF. You can be a HOF and you can work for a HOF. I have absolutely no idea what a HOF is. Though a quick bit of research suggests that HOF could possibly be an acronym for one of many institutions. Taking steroids, unless prescribed by a physician. Is not sensible. Therefore I certainly would not disagree with the advice you are proffering. Nonetheless. I think it unfair to imply, that all people who take steroids, are not hardworking. I would suggest that laziness is a condition prevalent in all sectors of society.
Animals should be used for testing

Thanks you, Pro. This debate should be fun. In response to the two questions Pro poses in Round 1: 1) No, they would probably not lay down their life for their pet, but they would also probably not lay down their life for anyone. There is a reason that killing someone in self-defense is not the moral equivalent of killing someone to steal their money. The difference lies in the intention: in one case you kill someone to save your own life. Killing animals, pets, whatever, makes sense when there is a direct threat to your own life. 2) Pro's second question already presupposes that testing our "vaccinations" and other "crucial experiments" on animals works. Before we can ask if their are alternatives to using animals for testing, we have to know whether testing on animals is relevant to human health in the first place. Of course, the answer is that animal testing has not been relevant to advancements in medicine or human health. In an article published in the esteemed "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine," the very notion itself was debunked. In the article, it was pointed out that "animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses." Furthermore, there is the obvious fact that animal biology is very different from human biology, and therefore, is unreliable. The FDA has noted that 92 percent of drugs shown to be safe and effective animal tests fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous to humans. It has been shown that physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. The point is, using animals for our experiments has no medical value for us, because it is simply unreliable. Animal biology is different from ours.
yes 1+1=3

I will provide a reason that 1 + 1 = 2 in this round as well as refute your points. In order to start defining 1+1=2, we need some basis of what we are talking about; we need some things that show us what addition means, what equalling means, etc. The Peano PostulatesPeano was a mathematician that allows us to talk about math through his postulates (that are often called axioms now); it is important when defining new ways of ordering numbers to speak the same language, so he gave us the language to speak. The smallest set N which satisfies the following postulates is indistinguishable from, and can be taken to be, the natural numbers:Postulate 1. 1 is in NPostulate 2. If x is in N, then it's successor (number after) x' is in NPostulate 3. There is no x in N such that x' = 1Postulate 4. If y in N isn't 1, then there is a x in N such that x' = yPostulate 5. If x and y are in N and x' = y', then x = y. Postulate 6. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S ==> x' in S) holds, then S = NFurther, Peano gave us some ways to more easily grasp the concept of addition. Def: Let a and b be in N.1. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2).2. If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'. We can restate this as:Def:1. a + 1 = a', and2. a + b' = (a + b)'Just as a matter of notation, we write 1' = 2, 2' = 3, 3' = 4, etc. Now, onto the actual proof of 1 + 1 = 2:Let a = 1 and b = 1a + b = a + aa + a = a'a' = 1'1' = 2Therefore, 1 + 1 = 2. QED. Now, let's examine my opponent's proof.1+1=11 [This breaks Peano's postulates, it must be wrong]11-0=101 [Not possible with P5 of Peano]101=lol [Possible with some sorts of variables]lol=lool [Therefore l^2 * o^2 = 101]o+o=1 [1/2 = .5, therefore o=.5] [This means in the above answer, l must necessarily be around 10.4 due to rounding]1+(0+0)+1=1+(pi)/(sin(8)) + f(00) [Or, 1+1 = 1+ pi/sin(8) [f(00) has no definition]. 1+1 = 1+~3.18 = ~4.18]~4.18 = 1+1+1 [This isn't true; 1`` = 3 necessarily]~4.18 = 3So, we can see that there are multiple lines that are broken mathematically. My opponent's proof just doesn't hold up.
yes 1+1=3

1+1=11 =11-0 =101 =lol =lol-0 =lool o+o=1 =1+(0+0)+1 =!+Pi/sin(8)+f(00) =1+1+1 =3 is real i have a phsd in matheatics and aslo inmanths. You acannot porve me wrong becuase I show to Mr. Mount and he is math teacher he laughe at me which menas thatn ia m actually correct. mr mount is good teach he let us play soccert so he must be write, i was called genius thins yoear in 6th grade so i am reight how about that how can u evenr ebut my logacly ritien points sorry about my gramma, i am texting and rick gave me to use so yesaha. also i reallt like crystal <3
The only morally acceptable form of government is no government

Since my opponent only interested to debate his propositions.. I will not mention any new argument and will only try to negate his points. To negate his first point, he referred that the citizens do not want to fund the government and do not want to be governed. This is not necessary true. Government exists base on the theory of "social contract", which is to surrender humans' "natural rights" and submit to the authority in exchange for the protection of their rights. Under the contract, instead of "natural rights", humans will instead live with the "legal rights".[1] Definition: Natural rights are rights that is universal, inalienable and is not influenced by any form of governments, cultures or beliefs. Legal rights are rights that is given to one person by a given legal system. In the past, under the time of Monarchy or Dictatorship, natural rights were used as a justification for the establishment of the social contract. Conversely, many anarchists also use the natural rights as a way to challenge such establishment.[2] According to John Locke, a Enlightenment philosopher who has influenced many individuals including the Founding Fathers of the United States. Humans have the natural right to defend his "Life, Health, Liberty and Possessions". However, in some case, the sole right to defend one's property isn't enough, so us humans have to established a civil society to resolve conflict which is the government.[3] One of my opponent's point is "The meaning of property rights is that if one legitimately has property no one else may invade, damage, destroy, or harm the property without consent of the owner." He also claims that if such is true, then no form of government is morally legitimate. This claim is true on theory. However, on practical, it seems impossible. If there were no establishment of government, each human will act selfishly according to his/her desire. There would be no authority or civil security to stop them. A good example to demonstrate this is the book "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding. The context of the book is that a group of children is stuck on an inhabited island and try to govern themselves, however, ends with disastrous result.[4] More example would be a hypothetical situation where someone, who is unassumingly stronger than you, takes something that is belong to you. Under my opponent's meaning of property rights, he is not allowed to take it; however, he did. Without the existence of government nor civil security, who is there to stop him? Furthermore, in my opponent last argument that is government monopolies our activity. This is true under some form of government; however, in a modern society, where democracy or republic are the ideal government, such monopoly is not a common practice. Source: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The only morally acceptable form of government is no government

It is inconceivable that a government could exist on a totally voluntary basis - that is with the citizens funding it totally voluntarily. It would no longer be a government if that were the case. Governments are merely made up of people and, if we all have equal rights, no one has the right to take the property of another without their voluntary consent. What rights would we have? The only rights we need are the right to life, liberty, and property rights and these are natural rights. These rights are not created or given by governments. Property rights are defined as the right to exclusively control scarce resources. Property rights are acquired by either being the first to physically demarcate the borders of otherwise unowned resources or by voluntarily getting them from other people who were legitimate owners either through free trade or gift or some other kind of voluntary exchange. One has property rights in his/her own body. There is no other way to legitimately acquire property rights. The meaning of property rights is that if one legitimately has property no one else may invade, damage, destroy, or harm the property without consent of the owner. If the above is true, which is the entire subject of this debate, then no form of government is morally legitimate. All manner of current government activity will no longer be possible but it is also true that much activity currently monopolised by government would still be possible. It would just be implemented on a voluntary basis instead of by threats of violence. But how it would be done is not the subject of this debate. I'm only interested at this point in debating the arguments and propositions given above.
We should ban boxing

Good luck! NOTE: I'm sorry, but I cannot view videos posted here. Sorry! Well, onto the debate! 1. 1,000 Deaths Fine. I will state several sources that back up my argument. I will state that 1,000 boxers died "in the last millennium, I guess. Well, let's move on. . http://wiki.answers.com... . http://articles.latimes.com... (I know that it says 0.13 participants die out of 1,000 participants, which means about 13 per participants. However, we have way more than 1,000 participants. ) . http://www.eastsideboxing.com... (This proves deaths that are caused from boxing. ) 2. Boxing Sport I realize that boxers are aware of possible injuries. They entered at their will. They did not die because of their will, but of the fact that they got beat up by their opponent. I see what you mean, but I cannot very adequately refute that argument. However, the deaths are caused by boxing or injuries from boxing, not by their will as stated in these sources. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://ejmas.com... 3. Safety in Boxing True, but this still cannot prevent brain damage when you "knock-out" your opponent. Besides, if you are angry, you cannot control yourself. You kill your opponent. Referees cannot stop you. Therefore, we should ban boxing. 4. Boxing Harms and Benefits Yes, thank you for agreeing to my point. I agree that you cannot deny that, just like how I could barely deny the part of free will. Muhammad Ali died from boxing, too. It may give discipline, but it gives it for death. 5. Enjoyment It may be fun to watch boxing, but it is certainly not fun for the boxers. This is like with the Gladiators. Gladiators fight, spectators watch or laugh when someone gets "knocked- out. " Therefore, it is not exactly fun. ==> Conclusion As anyone can possibly see, we should ban boxing. He has not touched some arguments I made. I wish him and the readers good luck and happy holidays. Thank you.
We should ban boxing

Good luck! 1. Boxing injuries Boxing is intended to harm others. The goal of boxing is to "knock out" your opponent. This causes unconsciousness, and then results in brain damage. For example, Levander Johnson died, all because of brain injuries. The Quarry brothers passed away because of beatings. Ouch! About 1,000 boxers died, and many others were seriously injured. . http://larrybrownsports.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Boxing harms Some of the people here at debate. org had black eyes before, right? As stated in my definition in Round 1, boxing is the act of fighting with fists. Now, there are many kinds of boxing, so I will pick out a Chinese boxing called: Wing Chun. Wing Chun involves many ways of taking down your opponent. The Wing Chun punch hurts a lot! . http://www.lawingchun.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... I await my opponent's response.
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned

"7 out of every 10 smokers want to quit, so helping people get off the drug is the first priority." What about the other 3 in 10? Some people will be dead set on being able to smoke and will still buy the cigarettes illegally. This could encourage some criminals to come from other countries to be "cigarette dealers" to earn money. Also, as I said before, some of the things that happened in the Prohibition could happen if smoking became illegal. Additionally, jails would be filled up with illegal smokers when they should be spending their resources on other worse criminals. "Simply quitting cold turkey, without help has a 5% success rate, likely why prohibition failed for allcohol." And yet you say the same thing should happen for cigarettes. Many people who specialize in helping addicts quit their addiction The stu
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned

Though there are risks for those quitting when we are taking tobacco off the market entirely, it isn't impossible to do this.7 out of every 10 smokers want to quit, so helping people get off the drug is the first priority.Simply quitting cold turkey, without help has a 5% success rate, likely why prohibition failed for alcohol.http://www.quit-smoking-advisor.com...However, it is important to note, it can be way more successful than gradually decreasing consumption of other methods are used to help. Other methods include therapy and nicotine patches.When two groups were given nicotine replacement therapy and one group was made to quit abruptly with the other cutting of gradually, cold turkey came out on top."The researchers found that 49% of the participants in the abrupt-quit group were not smoking by one month after their quit day, compared with 39.2% in the gradual-quit group. By six months, success rates had dropped, but the difference between the groups was still there: 22% of the abrupt quit group was not smoking, compared with 15.5% of the gradual-quit group." https://www.cnn.com...This shows, therefore, as long as other support is in place quitting abruptly is the best option. Stopping the sale of cigarettes in turn will help them quit, also keeping triggers for relapse out of the public. Seeing someone smoking in public can be a relapse trigger.https://smokefree.gov...
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned

"Con says, 'The problem is that...' That is why I'm talking about a ban on the sale of cigarettes. That way those feeding this addiction can be taken out of the picture without attacking those dealing with addiction." If you banned the sale of cigarettes, the addicts still wouldn't be able to buy more. Say they have 5 packs at their house. They will likely use those packs, and then they would want to buy more, which would be illegal. They would likely just buy cigarettes illegally which wouldn't help with their addiction. Even the addicts seeking treatment would still probably want to buy some. They don't seek treatment and immediatly stop smoking cigarettes. They wean themselves off the cigarettes and would still need to buy them after the ban is imposed. Also, some people could claim to be trying to wean themselves off when they really aren't and just want more cigarettes.
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned

Con says, "The problem is that many people are already addicted to cigarettes. If we impose a ban, that would not stop many people. Smoking is similar, in my opinion, to certain mental health problems. I say this because many people cannot overcome their habit of smoking without seeking other people's help. "That is why I'm talking about a ban on the sale of cigarettes. That way those feeding this addiction can be taken out of the picture without attacking those dealing with addiction. Prohibition was rushed, and had a skewed focus, this doesn't have to end that way.If we wait for people to seek help, tobacco companies are still benefiting from taking advantage of people.Banning tabacco in this way is also necessary to help stop second hand smoking deaths. 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure in the us. https://www.cdc.gov... In 2011, tabacco killed around 6 million people around the globe, these deaths could have been prevented. The indistry makes $35 Billion dollars a year for killing people, that shouldn't be legal.https://www.maurerfoundation.org...
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned

I think that the sale of cigarettes should not be banned, at least not yet. I agree that they are detrimental to many people's health and to society as a whole. I also think we would be much better off if they weren't invented. The problem is that many people are already addicted to cigarettes. If we impose a ban, that would not stop many people. Smoking is similar, in my opinion, to certain mental health problems. I say this because many people cannot overcome their habit of smoking without seeking other people's help. Throwing them in jail for buying cigarettes won't help because it won't stop their addiction. Their brain is addicted to cigarettes, and jail won't stop the addiction. The addiction can be stopped, on the other hand, by letting the addicts decide that they need help to stop smoking and that they need to go to someone like a specialist to stop their addiction. Forcing them to go to jail will not help. Eventually, I hope that we can eliminate smoking, but I don't think it would be a good idea now because of how many people are still addicted to cigarettes. During the Prohibition, many people disregarded the alcohol ban and the ban actually resulted in many bad things for the country. Some of the same effects could happen with smoking. I await your argument.
The first pregnant man was not a man, thus he is not the first pregnant man II

The first time I debated this, my opponent forfeit. I remade it.I hold the position that the first pregnant "man" was NOT a man at birth, thus he/she should NOT be considered the first pregnant man. Con, or you, hold the position that he is technically a man, thus should be considered the first pregnant man. Rules. First round is acceptance. Break this rule and you forfeit all points to pro. The first pregnant man is Thomas Beatie. Claims otherwise make that part of your argument false. BoP is shared. The bible is a limited source. If you use the bible, use another source to back it up. If you break this rule, your claim in the argument is false. Forfeit any round, and you forfeit all points to pro. I accept this challenge, and will debate anyone.
The first pregnant man was not a man, thus he is not the first pregnant man II

==Rebuttal== "Around the age of 10 years old Tracy began to “self-identify with the male gender” and “at 23 year old began testosterone hormone treatment to transition to living life as a man”(1). In 2002 he/she underwent a sex reassignment surgery" First, you can get testosterone but you will only look like a man, not become one. Also, sex reassignment does not actually change your sex. Sex was already defined as predetermined biological category of male or female defined by internal and external organs as well as chromosomes. The key thing here, is the chromosome. It cannot be changed. "sex marker from female to male " What puzzles me here is the fact she did not get a different sex, just a different gender yet it's called a sex marker. Gender and sex ARE different. " If we look at the definition of male and female it would seem that Thomas would fall under the female definition instead of the male" Admitting to being wrong? " As a society though, we life under a set of laws that we all operate under. Legally speaking, Thomas was a male at the time his children were born. So according to the rules that we live by Thomas as male at the time his children were born Thomas was not a male at the time his children were born. Her sex is female, making her of the female sex, however she may call herself a man but only to the degree of being of the male GENDER not sex. "Legaly speaking, Thomas underwent a “valid sex change(1)” which does not require sterilization. Also if we were to examine Thomas’s birth certificate or driver’s license it would have sex as male" However, her sex is female, If I said I was Asian when I'm white, which one would I be? It may sound silly or odd, but this is actually a serious question. "This means that according to the rules we live by, it has been decided that Thomas is a male." Just because the government says it's legal it doesn't mean these two things I it's true and II it's morally right. Science is often mad at the government for defining things that aren't true. Like adding 10 sexes when there are only two. I see you used wikipedia, I'd like to state it is okay to use wikipedia, but don't let it be your only source.
The first pregnant man was not a man, thus he is not the first pregnant man II

==Argument==i. Thomas has female reproductive organs and his/she sex is female, thus he/she is not a man.The definition of "sex" is"Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs."[http://www.med.monash.edu.au......]Thomas beatie, born a female, has female chromosomes, and obviously internal sex organs, otherwise, she/he could not give birth to a child. Therefore, her/his sex is female, making him/her female, and just any other woman to give birth to a child. ii. Thomas has a gender change, not an actual sex change, thus he/she is still female.The definition of transgender is"Transgender is the state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex."[http://en.wikipedia.org......]Note the key word sex, which was earlier defined as "biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs"Since his/her gender changed, not his/her sex, she/he is still female in sex, but male in gender. Note, gender and sex are different. Saying he/she is of male gender, does not mean he/she is actually male by biological definition.Since Thomas is still biological female, his/her sex had not changed, thus he/she is not the first pregnant man. He/she is like any other woman that gave birth.==Conclusion==Since Thomas is still female by definition of sex, he/she had given birth as a woman. Thus, he/she is not the first pregnant man.Definition of sex"Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs."[http://www.med.monash.edu.au......]Definition of transgender"Transgender is the state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex."[http://en.wikipedia.org......]Since transgenders are free of sex, Thomas is still biological female.