BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pansexual is the same as bisexual

There is no such thing as true sexuality, we are only varying degrees of Pansexual. If you took a bisexual person and showed them a picture of say this model (http://www.oddee.com...) I Believe most of them would find her attractive. The problem with that? That specific woman is transgendered, she was born a man. I considered myself a heterosexual cisgendered man, but if I saw a woman like that at party, I'd hit on her most likely, but if I found out she was transgendered I'd run into a real dilemma, eh? Same thing can be applied for a lot of stuff, transvestites, intersex, hermaphodites, and more can be VERY Attractive and convincing, and there's at least one model of the above mentioned "other" genders I'm SURE A Bisexual, Straight or Gay Person would be attracted to, so in the end there really is no single sexuality, all just varying degrees of pansexuality.
Pansexual is the same as bisexual

Word origins and meanings: Pan- : from a Greek term meaning "all" or "every" Bi- : also from a Greek term, meaning "two" Argument: "Bisexuality implies a potential for romantic/sexual attraction to either both genders (man and woman) or both sexes (male and female). The literal definition of the word does not include inter-sex or gender nonconforming people the way that pan-sexuality does." "Bisexual is being sexually attracted to both genders, male and female, while pan-sexual is being capable of having romantic feelings and attraction to males, females, and third gendered individuals." "Bisexual identity more so establishes attraction to both genders, whereas pan-sexual identity more so recognizes the existence of other genders (third genders) and the capacity to be sexually attracted to individuals identifying as these various genders." "The bisexual and pan-sexual communities have their own flags, colors, and ideologies. Pan sexual identity is more accommodating for individuals who engage in relationships with people of varying genders and sexualities." Back-up: My quotes have clearly stated that bisexuality is not the same as pan-sexuality. As bisexuality is only the attraction of boys and girls, ad pan-sexuality is the attraction to all genders and identities. Resources: http://www.differencebetween.net... http://curiousrantsofawannabephilosopher.wordpress.com...
Political correctness damages political debate

INTRODUCTIONWow, what an argument. Let's see if I can match that.ARGUMENTBefore, we can continue, we must all learn what PC means. " conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated "In a debate, both sides need to get equal says of topics before a decision is made. However, PC often restricts the speech of the side not in power, right now Republicans in the US are struggling with this. While I disagree of many things that the Republicans say, I do believe that their right to freedom of speech is sometimes restricted by PC. " According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid any criticism of pedophilia and to avoid criticizing anything related to Islam. The following is from a Judicial Watch Article…"There is a difference between challenging beliefs and forcing beliefs. Without criticism, there cannot be a proper debate. I am sure most people only challenge the beliefs of others rather than forcing their own beliefs on others, including soldiers, This is why PC damages political debate. Criticism allows people with an open mind to think, as it is only fair to listen to both sides of the story before choosing an opinion, Would it be fair to be pro-gay marriage without hearing the negative side? No. If you go to my profile and look at my stances on the big issues, you will see that some of them are not filled in, that is because I have not educated myself enough to make a formal opinion, as taking a stance on a subject I know little about is unfair. People who are "Politically Correct" force PC down people's throats, claiming that the other side is unfair, yet if these people choose to make an opinion based off of one side then I believe that political debate has been damaged. Alright, yes. Maybe some stuff is offensive and maybe there needs to be protection of the offended group, but you cannot force the "offenders" to change their opinions, you can still protect minorities without censoring opinions. You can encourage people to change their opinions but not change them. The government can help change opinions but they should not force people to change them. Ultimately, there is one person and one person only who can choose what opinion you have: You.CONCLUSIONI hope I have made my point clear.Anyways, I am done for now.DarthKirones.http://endoftheamericandream.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://patriotupdate.com...
Political correctness damages political debate

Pundits and political partisans of a certain ilk often lament how the political correctness movement has severely damaged their ability to effectively argue their beliefs. For example I got a feeling about political correctness. I hate it. It causes us to lie silently instead of saying what we think. - Hal Holbrook Political correctness kills discussion. - Lars von Trier Whether it's people walking off 'The View' when Bill O'Reilly makes a statement about radical Islam or Juan Williams being fired for expressing his opinion, over-reaching political correctness is chipping away at the fundamental American freedoms of speech and expression. - Eric Cantor I could post countless other lamentations from those who imagine that being politically correct somehow impedes their ability to communicate their message, as clearly no one would argue that political correctness limits a persons ability to think. Perhaps the best place to start is to define what Political Correctness (hereafter PC) is (thanks to Google for this useful definition) - the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. This is an excellent definition, firstly because it highlights the knee-jerk negative slant that my opponent will be arguing, that is that being PC is somehow extreme. I would argue that the notion that being PC is somehow akin to any extreme stance (usually defined as leftist) is flat our wrong and very much lazy thinking. PC is nothing more (or less) than carefully expressing oneself, avoiding the use of classic patriarchal terms. I understand how some lazy thinkers rally against having to carefully express themselves. If a persons thoughts unfiltered are apt to potentially insult large swathes of ones audience, then perhaps one needs to examine ones thoughts more closely. That PC is nothing more than framing ones arguments, not limiting ones arguments.
Human population needs to be controlled

Unfortunately you are mistaken. People live longer now than at any point in history......at one point the average age of death was in the 30's. it was extremely rare to live to the age the average human lives to in this day in age. weather we will get the unwanted down to 0 or not is not what's important. What is important is that we try. even reducing that number in half will make a drastic improvement in the population crisis we find ourselves in. the quote about teens actually provides a good stat for me to use..78% is a large percentage. and that is how many of them don't want to have the child. This is even further evidence that we have to do something to try and solve the problem. I propose making contraception available to all humans. This is the front line on the defense against unwanted pregnancy. Next would be to educate the masses on how those contraceptive devices can be useful and how they are used. Last you have to legalize abortion. Abortion is the last resort to preventing unwanted pregnancy and I believe that choice is up to the mother 100 percent.
Human population needs to be controlled

"live longer than ever in history." This statement is false. People lived longer back then that they do now. "However the problem is that 3.1 unwanted, that is where our growth is swelling into uncontrollable levels. How do we fix this? How do we get all the unwanted pregnancies down to 0?" We won't be able to, there is no way. Contraception? Sure, but with the amount of teens getting pregnant every year. There's no way that anyone is going to stop the amount of teen pregnancies. "Reports indicate that there are approximately 1 million teenagers in America that become pregnant each year. Of those, 78% are unintended. Of all the teenage women that become pregnant, 35% choose to have an abortion rather than bear a child."(I'm not quoting you, I'm quoting someone else) Teens are having abortions, which is murder, but from previous debates I have found out that you do not think that abortion is murder. So we will continue to disagree with this statement. Therefore I will have no comments on your abortion statements because I don't want to get off topic. I believe that our country has enough resources to provide for anyone who comes. If we have the resources, why bother controlling the population.
Human population needs to be controlled

First off our world is a lot like china in some aspects. But in terms of the kid law we don't have that yet. However it should be stated that China is facing a problem. They have a swollen population because individual people wanted big families. They do not have sufficient resources to provide for there entire population. That is a grave problem that i dont want to see here. One must accept that we live in a world of Finite resources. As it currently stands, with the growth of health care and the almost nonexistent rate of child birth deaths, humans have swelled 7 billion in just less that 150 years and live longer than ever in history. These are the two biggest reason the population is as high as it is. But that is okay. I have a plan to get the population under control. Now I don't want you to think i am just going to say, kill people and get the numbers right. NO. What i do think we need to do is look at the Fertility rate for wanted vs unwanted pregnancy world wide. Almost unanimously unwanted pregnancy happens at a higher rate than wanted pregnancy's. Unwanted sits at roughly 3.1 and wanted is roughly at 2.1. What this means is people who want children are reproducing at a sustainable rate. At this rate you would be able to have 4 children because that 2.1 means a lot of people are only having 1 child. However the problem is that 3.1 unwanted, that is where our growth is swelling into uncontrollable levels. How do we fix this? How do we get all the unwanted pregnancies down to 0? Contraception for one. We need to provide long term contraception to all women who want it or need it. There are many ways to control your body to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately there is not a lot of options for men just yet that are temporary, so most advertising would be geared to women until more options become available for men in the future. My second solution is a very divisive one. I believe that the world needs to allow abortion to any women who wants one. By allowing abortion you empower women, giving them total control over their body. You set up a way for unwanting parents to go and not put themselves in a position they don't want to be in. Lastly this options helps get the 3.1 even lower getting our population to the sweet spot of 2.0 also know as the replacement rate.
God is real(Christianity)

People quickly gaining wealth and fame is pure luck. For every person who does, there are a thousand who don't; the odds are akin to roulette. The bible doesn't count as physical proof of anything, in the same way no book can. Someone telling you something doesn't make it true. I think you misunderstood my comment about a higher being in my first argument. Finally, billions of people worship their various gods for two reasons: 1) Because they're raised to and are told for their entire lives that such a being exists, and 2) because the idea of eternal life comforts them against the idea of nonexistance postmortem.
God is real(Christianity)

The easiest way to know whether good is real is to look at the lives of those who should not have made but did. There are many people in the 21 first century that have stories about how they had nothing and nearly lost hope. Do you think magic happened then poof they were famous and on top of the world. No they had help from god. You stated in your second argument that there is no physical proof that Jesus raised the dead but the bible itself is physical proof in that it tells you all of its history and the people thereof. In the first argument can you prove that there is a being that rules our fates and lives. Which states that you is there something that has control over our lives and fates. In closing here is a question to think about. Why is it that so many people worship a god if there is no such thing?
God is real(Christianity)

If there is not a supernatural being then how is in most timelines they use Jesus Christ who is part of the god head? If god is indeed not real then how was Jesus able to raise the dead. The proof itself can also be found the lives of those who nearly died but reported that as they were unconscious they saw something or someone. You also stated that god controls the fates of our lives but it is not true for in proverbs 16:9 it says "the heart of man plans his way". This means we have free will allowing us to do as we please.
Obama as Pesident...

I will challenge my opponents assertions first and make my own arguments second. 1. Rebuttals. A) Obama is eligible to run for president. To be eligible for president, according to the constitution you must be 35 years old, have lived in America for at least 14 years and be born inside the 50 states. Obama's birth certificate - http://www.whitehouse.gov... Obama has lived in America at the very least since he began college and stayed to serve in the senate (if you want me to cite this I will, but seeing as he had been a public servant for a decade before moving into the oval office I think this point is beyond dispute). Therefore, he ticks all three boxes. B. He has never tried to repeal the 2nd amendment. How do I prove something he didn't do? He has tried to ban certain models and increase gun control. But he has never tried to repeal the 2nd, or any amendment. Sorry. 2. My argument. Barrack Obama is not the worst president ever. To win this point, all I have to do is find one president who is worse than Obama. Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon were both impeached. Warren G Harding said of his tenure "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here". (1) So far Obama has not given any evidence of wrong doing or incompetence on a level of these three. He has not had a Bay of pigs, Watergate, Lewinsky...instead he has overseen the death of Bin Laden, overseen the worst economic crash since the 30's and kept the country going and all of this with constant accusations that he is not really an American and probably the most aggressive opposition party since the 1800's. Regardless of were you stand politically Obama cannot be said to be the worst president ever. Right now, he is not the worst president ever. (1) - http://www.usnews.com...
Obama as Pesident...

Well tell me one thing, How did Obama become eligible to run for president,when he isn't even considered a citizen of the United States? And a while ago, he was trying to take away the rights for Americans to own guns and keep them in their houses. The 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What is the Reasoning that Obama has created to take this right away from us? Some people say that for someone to be able to own a gun/firearm, they have to first obtain a license, therefore people say its a privilege instead of a right. Although you only need a license if you are going to hunt with it or to use it as a self defense weapon. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is a right not a privilege, and who says that Obama has the "right" to take that away from us?
Intelligent Design VS The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

ResolutionIntelligent Design is likely true and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are likely not true.Burden Of Proof Is SharedPro - has 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is likely true (Pro's BoP) and refute Con.Con - has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are likely true (Con's BoP) and refute Pro. Definitions (from Google definitions)Intelligent Design - life and the universe were designed and created by some intelligent entity.The Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe.Abiogenesis - the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.Evolution - the process by which living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.Likely - probablyTrue - in accordance with fact or reality*There are no rounds, therefore there are no round rules; there is no acceptance round...just start debating.*Definitions can be changed before the debate, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree.*These definitions are agreed on by posting your first argument without changing them in the comments.
Intelligent Design VS The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

Please read the explanations in round 1 next time. Pro concedes, so I reject the resolution based on Pro's concession. Although, I disagree that the big bang isn't proven, and that "there's a massive black hole at the center of the universe." Where's the center of the universe? I argue there is no center of the universe. Also, the idea that a black hole somehow leads to a big bang is flawed. This is not the current understanding of black holes or the big bang.
Patriotism: Con V Pro (Short Debate)

Ok here is my argument. First off i'd like to state that your reasoning is tainted, the opposite of patriotism is not dislike or hatred, but merely indifference and an open mind. So here is my reasoning as to why one should not patriotic, especially considering braggarts like your average stereotypical US sports fan. To be patriotic means to defend your country right or wrong no matter what. In the case of America for instance, why would you back a nation plagued with a dastardly past and present (slavery, mass genocides, oil theft in Afghanistan etc). Patriots typically back their country because it gives them a sense of strong identity, proclaiming how their army and economy is one of the greatest. But this demonstrates ignorance, just because one is dominant does not make them moral. It feels like patriotism is an excuse to hide behind personal struggles, thus creating bias and self defence mechanisms. To expand, here's a quick quote from Quora; "I think that people who support their country's policies, no matter whether they are right or wrong, usually do so because they don't know much about other people in other countries", Exactly could not agree anymore, I highly doubt patriotic stereotypes spend time studying and learning about other cultures and societies. I believe the best way forward is to demonstrate understanding and knowledge of your countries policies, but don't use it as an ego boost, and definitely don't back it w/out research, otherwise peoples will come at you with brains and teach you a lesson.
Patriotism: Con V Pro (Short Debate)

Patriotism is essential for any country. Truly patriotic citizens who love the country that they are in will be happier than those who hate or just dislike their country. If you were hiring for a large company and there were two candidates for the same job and both of them had the same skill set but one of the candidates loved the company you were hiring for and were satisfied with how it"s run the best bet is to select the candidate who liked the state of the corporation. Another argument for this would be to hire a babysitter who likes kids. If you are going to be a part of something you have to love the thing you are a part of.
According to the bible. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99.9% Christians are in error.

I've read a few of your debates Mr. Dwayne and I find them very interesting. I'm certainly looking forward to this one! With regard to your first argument: Just because Adam was the son of God doesn't make him God. I'm my fathers son, but I'm not my father. Now, I believe that there are several places in the Bible that contradict the idea that Adam and God were the same. I'll briefly list three of them here. 1) Deuteronomy 33:27, I Timothy 1:17 and Exodus 15:18 all show that God is eternal; yet Genesis 5:5 clearly tells us that Adam died. If God is eternal then that means He has no end. So contradiction number one is the death of Adam. 2) God is perfect as shown in Deuteronomy 32:4, II Samuel 22:31 and Matthew 5:4. On the other hand, Genesis 2:16, 3:6 and 3:17-19 tells of the sin of Adam. Therefore, contradiction number two is Adam's sin making him fall short of the perfection possessed by God. 3) Finally, if God was Adam, then why was Adam able to be tempted by Eve? James 1:13 clearly states that God cannot be tempted. Contradiction number three is Adam being tempted by Eve. Thank you for your time and consideration, and may God bless you!
According to the bible. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99.9% Christians are in error.

You provided a lot of Bible verses to support your idea in this last round, but none of them prove that Adam was in fact God. "The bible has 300+ prophecies leading to the virgin birth of Christ, being born of the seed of Adam fulfilling being the Root of David who Prevailed." I believe I provided sufficient information to prove that Adam was not the root and offspring of David in the last round. You interpretation of Genesis chapter three is very interesting. Though, I don't think it's correct. I believe that the last verse of the part that you quoted provides more proof that Adam was not Jesus. It reads: "for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Jesus did not return to dust (decompose) when He died. He was only dead for a few days and then returned to life! Now, I do see where many parallels can be made between Adam and Jesus in this passage, but that does not mean or prove that they're the same being. It just proves that parallels can be made between them. Also, you never gave any explanation regarding the people that weren't descended from Adam and Eve. I agree that the Bible is the story of the chosen people, Israel, but I don't understand where you found these other people in the Bible. Well, I thank you for your time and thoughts during this debate. YHWH be with you!