BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet.

Well, that was disappointing. Before ending this debate, I would like to summarize everything that has happened. My opponent has failed to address my three main arguments (not including the points I made last round), which are the following: 3. Baha'i are discriminated against more than single, white, straight males are. 4. Gays and lesbians are discriminated against more than single, white, straight males are. 5. Animals, insects, arachnids, and bugs are discriminated against more than single, white, males are. Furthermore, she has forfeited three out of five rounds. In one of the rounds my opponent did not forfeit, she simply reposted arguments she produced in the comments section, all of which I had already refuted.
Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet.

There is not much to refute here, so I'll extend all arguments. In addition, I just realized that we never actually defined "discrimination". It's a bit late in the game to do so, but I think by looking at the definition we can better understand my arguments. Discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality [1].Discriminate: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately [1]. By creating laws and/or groups in favor of or against another group (i.e. groups campaigning for gay marriage), you are singling them out. This means you discriminate in favor of that particular group. The resolution reads, "Straight, single, white males are the most discriminated group on the planet". Thus, because my opponent did not put "discriminated against group on the planet," we are also taking discrimination for particular groups into consideration as well. This means groups such as homosexuals are not only discriminated against, but people also discriminate in favor of them. Because they are discriminated against both ways, people discriminate against and/or for them much more than single, white, straight males, which means the resolution is negated. Sorry this is rather short, but there is not a lot I can do here. Good luck to my opponent in the final round. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet.

Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group on the planet because I can't think of 1 law in place which protects the rights of single white males. I can't think of and what I can't think of I can find, a law for protecting the rights of every person-group imaginable.... Except straight single white males. Discuss :) All points, here we go. You have numbered them, I will do the same and counter you. 1) There are thousands of pro-zion and pro-jew groups in the world. All protecting Jewish interests. There are non for single white straight males. You cannot find 1 law protected group which does this. Judaism is both a cultural and religious identity and not a race as the Caucasian race is. In the present day WHICH IS WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT OR i WOULD HAVE WORDED IT 'Straight Single White Males are the most discriminated group IN HISTORY............... Next. 2) Once again its past but I will entertain you on this one. Most of the people cleansed were white males, I cannot verify if they were married or not but I would assume the kids weren't. They were cleansed as they were destroying Serbia (My Serbian GF lived through it all) and using Islam, just as is happening now in the States, to try to establish Islamic rules. There are many pro-muslim groups in the world looking out for muslims, some of those muslims are single white and straight but as Islam is mainly a very mixed bunch............ You point fails badly. 3) The World Factbook states that Bahï¿½'ï¿½s make up 0.12% of the world based on a 2007 estimate,[12] corresponding to 7.9 million people. There are groups campaigning for them, as those groups provided you with your information. There are more than 7.9 million single straight white males in England alone and NOBODY has set up groups for them, gay yes, straight no, black, brown and anything else yes, ... White, single, straight... no Conclusion: My opponent is yet to provide 1 single law or law protected group trying to get equal rights for single white straight males and has attempted to use mixed races which make up religions and a small groups of people in Iran. I say again, there are groups campaigning for every other group yet white single straight males continue to get ignored in today's world. It is because groups are not being allowed to stand up for the rights of this group they are being deniable to rights and therefore discriminated against by default. I understand people are too scared to stand up of single straight white men's rights because it is somehow racist to to that but O.K. to create groups which cater for everyone else. The few occasions where groups which attempt to cater just for white men holistically they are shot down as racists but throw the word 'gay' into the description and suddenly it is o.k. There us a UFC fighter (Cain Velasquez) with 'Brown Pride' Tattooed on his body, can you imagine 'white pride' on a FOX T.V. endorsed pro athlete? I didn't think you could. Discrimination by default in NOT allowing single white straight males have groups which look out for them... All the others do.
smoking should legal

You state that smoking is a person's own choice but that does not change the fact that it is harmful. It can cause illnesses which are time consuming and costly to treat, not only that but if a lung transplant is required then others may lose their life just so someone who caused their problems could live. Of course you could argue that in those cases the smoker shouldn't get treatment, but then would it not be better to prevent people from ruining their health rather than preventing them from getting treatment? SHS (second hand smoke) is not that easy to avoid. It is smoke, you can't walk a few steps to the side and be away from it; there are many situations where you can't walk away and it would be rude to tell a person to stop smoking. If you are in a hurry to go somewhere is it fair that you may have to choose the long way round to avoid SHS? Children may not even know of the damage that SHS causes so you can't expect them to 'get up and leave' if someone is smoking close by.
smoking should legal

people should be able to smoke. yes it is bad for your health but its their body and they should be able to smoke if they want they know its bad for them. It is also addictive but what that's got to do with someone else. Its their habbit not yours. second hand smoke can give other lung cancer but its not like you have to be around it. The person that is not smoking can always get up and leave or ask the other person if they will go smoke some where else. When it comes to smoking in the car if it is your car you can just tell them that there is no smoking you the car and if they don't like the idea they don't have to ride with you. If it is there car they can smoke in it and the person riding don't have to ride with them. Someone can also say that there should be no smoking in public places but if you think about it not alt of places let you smoke inside anyways and the places that do you don't have to go to them and some of them have there our section to smoke or another room the it cut off
smoking should legal

You forfeited the round so I will just continue with my argument. Like I previously stated, one cannot simply get out of the way of smoke. In fact, an estimate of 46,000 of non-smokers die from heart disease, all because of SHS. Though the argument that I would like to expand on is the one regarding children. A child would not recognise cigarette smoke as something dangerous, they may not like the smell and move, but more often than not they would probably carry on playing. It's unjust to keep your child cooped up inside just so smokers can pollute their lungs out in the open. Children who are exposed to SHS are more likely to suffer from serious complications and they are more likely to be hospitalised even if it's just the flu. I would like to repeat that smoke is not easy to get away from, even if you're inside it can get in through an open window and I don't know what kind of world you live in but in mine that is not okay. Source: http://www.cancer.org...
Socks are the worst Christmas present ever

I know nobody who spend $7 on socks. Socks are presents bought buy people who do not wish to spend a lot of money. Plus a doll for $7 isn't going to be good quality you can make teddies and dolls out of socks , which is much more rewarding than just being given a toy. Plus there are much worse presents that sock that may even cost more than socks so price does not come it to it. For example my sister got an incredibly ugly wooden elephant which cost the buyer $9 this was much worse than socks as at least socks are useful.
Socks are the worst Christmas present ever

I do agree that socks can be used for many things but instead of socks that might cost around $7 ,(where I am at least),that amount of money could go into a small doll or a small toy car.i mean face it, your child would prefer a small doll or a small toy car instead of socks. As for adults, your wife might enjoy a bouquet of flowers for the same price or your husband might be able to get a new tie. Why socks? Get something better for the same price.
Socks are the worst Christmas present ever

How can socks be the worst presents when they have so many uses? First of all you can wear them as socks (you can never have enough socks). Secondly you can get awesome novelty socks which are great for parties and ice breakers. Thirdly you can make puppets out of them Finally they can be given to someone else as a present consequently saving you money. There are many other uses of socks but I shall not bore you with them.
It is impossible to change the outcome of an event with time travel unless information is retained

The point is that a person does not really get to choose what they do, they make decisions based on their knowledge and experiences and a given moment in time. So no matter how many times you retry, nothing has changed that would lead you to change your actions thus resulting in your death. Every "decision" is made with a reason that can be traced to the decision makers experiences and cause and efffect relationships in their life. It isn't a matter of probability because there is no reason for your actions to change because all the stimuli and experiences stay the same so thus you make the same choices and walk the same path. I'm just wanting to know if anyone can give a reason why they could be able to change their fate.
It is impossible to change the outcome of an event with time travel unless information is retained

"You do not retain any knowledge past the point of the rewinded 60 seconds." I see your point there but your wording is quite confusing. This kind of implies that anything after the 60 seconds you don't remember. But that is beside the point. According to the law of infinite probability eventually, you should be able to survive. One of those times you might wander outside.
It is impossible to change the outcome of an event with time travel unless information is retained

This is more or less a thought experiment for determinism. Con is arguing for the ability to change outcomes without information. Conditions are that you will die via a random car crashing into your home as you are watching television in 30 seconds. Upon death you are rewinded to 60 seconds before your time of death all states of the universe are reverted to their exact positions and states at that particular point in time. You do not retain any knowledge past the point of the rewinded 60 seconds. Can you break the loop?
It is impossible to change the outcome of an event with time travel unless information is retained

But you can't prove that because it is never an identical situation? Any given point in time is a unique situation with unuque stimuli that consciously and unconscious affects decision making. We can only act different with new information, the neurons in my brain fired a certain way and if I rewinded time to that point and nothing has changed, why would it work any different? I feel we have kinda wasted our generous debate room so I guess we can continue in the comments if you wish.
It is impossible to change the outcome of an event with time travel unless information is retained

If I was hungry I might either decide between eating a sandwich or sitting and watching TV. I stay to watch TV and the car comes and kills me. Everything the same the next time, what if I feel like getting up to get a sandwich? The outside stimuli didn't matter you thought the same thing yet you just decided differently. Like flipping a coin. What makes me say heads and the next time I could just as easily say tails.
The Christian God exists (7)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. I await my opponent's arguments.
The Christian God exists (7)

I'd like to note that neither Pro nor Godel defined "positive property", but in the way Pro used the term I have to assume that he's talking about good attributes. REBUTTAL 1&2: Pro has not answered my question about how he came to the conclusion that all positive properties must be exemplified in real life. Being fictional is a positive property, so wouldn't this god also have to be fictional? 3. It doesn't matter if William Shakespeare or Richard Dawkins translated this DNA, the question is how did they do it? How would you take four "characters" and translate them into an extensive alphabet? We don't know, because there's no sources or methodology shown by the website. This makes it impossible to validate the experiment. Also, this is truly random. Make a sequence of 3 billion characters with four characters as possibilities. You'll be able to pick out any combination you'd like from it. Try it. I'm not going to retread my arguments once again, but you've done virtually nothing to offset them. In summary, Godel's convoluted, mystical proof is arbitrary, contradictory, and semantical, and Pro's DNA "evidence" has no procedure to support it, nor does it stand up to even a basic amount of knowledge or scrutiny. This is a clear Con vote.
The Christian God exists (7)

Hmm the two refutations he gives dont seem like refutations. Instead they are questions.1. It is not an assumption. It is what the argument shows. Existence is a positive property, if a being with all positive properties exists and if that isnt incoherent, then that being must have existence. It will only work with a being that has all positive properties.2. Wrong. Harry pooter can have some other positve property. A unicorn can be even more colorful or harry pooter even more powerful. They cannot be in space since they can have a more positive property of being bigger. Any being must have all possible positve properties and cannot gain any more. DNA such as GAT,ect may be made by humans. But linguists were investigation the code of the DNA not what scientitis describe it as. Everything has an inerent code. DDO may not seem ot have some inergent laungage but you can get into the website and discover it does. DNA is similar. DNA contains information, no scientist would deny this [1]. This information is the language. When translated we find it contains parts of the bible.Out of millions of letters why and how would there be a passage of the bible? The scientists inspected all different parts of the DNA. It is highly unlikely that we would find anything other than a word or two. Because there yare so many paths the letters can go. Do we really think cuns argument refutes mine because he says "Sall random brah". You can say the same about any argument for atheism. you can refute any argument like that."Sall random Brah".I rest my csae [1] http://www.nature.com...;
The Existence Of Everything Including Life Is Unavailing WIthout God

Well, I kind of know you accept since you responded to the challenge. But I saw your religion as "Unitarian Universalist", wouldn't that make you a theist also (a person who believes in the existence of God)? If so, how could you not agree that without God, life is ultimately pointless especially if a person were to live their life rejecting his existence or not wanting anything to do with him. According to the Atheists he doesn't exist, Deists claim the natural world is reason enough to believe in him, but do not believe he is necessary/needed in our lives. If he truly is the architect of the Universe which includes everything material, space, time, the cycle of life, energy, the Laws of Physics etc. I would think he plays a greater role in our lives and giving him respect as well as being the best people we can be in this corrupt world full since people lack patience, reason and benevolence. I'll come back to this later since I'm tired, what is your reason(s) for supporting the opposite side of this debate?
The Existence Of Everything Including Life Is Unavailing WIthout God

Without God (a necessary being) the strive to survive in life is only avoiding the inevitable (Death) and is unavailing. You could die the moment, hour, day, month, year after reading this argument I am posting and have had a enjoyable/awful life, but why continue to survive and whether you are willing to go to irrationally lengths to live (like killing another person/being) if you believe you will one day die, reject life after death like Heaven just to life a bit longer before you die?
Why dance is a sport

You have used some good sources for your information this time. However, as I said before, dancing is not competitive enough to be a sport. A single dancer of group of dancers are not directly in competition against another. They are competing for as many points as possible separately. Take Strictly Come Dancing for example (and yes, it does count as dancing). Each couple are trying to get as many points as possible. There is no direct competition here. Also, you have failed to prove why, according to your first 'definition' of dancing (see round 1), politics, torture, collecting or architecture are not sports. Also, you have repeated the same argument yet again (dancers need strength, stamina etc. ). It is perfectly okay to consider dancing a physical challenge. I agree with that. However, that does not make dancing a sport.
Why dance is a sport

Dance is a competitive sport. It has a set of rules. You can compete in a large group, as a soloist or in a duet or trio as well. Dancing requires strength, endurance, agility, dedication, skill, co-ordination and your body must be in top condition. You could hurt yourself in dancing just as easily as you can clap your hands together, yet most people do not recognize it as a sport. According to The Farlex Dictionary the word sport is defined as: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Dancers compete against other dancers and routines must comply with a set of rules. Dance moves must be done in a certain way. You must land them in a certain way. You have to have a certain number of balances, turns and flexibility moves in each level. These are the rules of dance. Artistry is judged separately from these moves. Athletes are people who participate in competitive sports. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the word athlete as a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports or games requiring physical strength, agility or stamina. According to this definition, a dancer is an athlete. Warm up exercises are a necessity so that a dancer will not pull muscles. To jump high off the ground you need agility and strength.
Why dance is a sport

Dancing may be somewhat competitive, but it is not directly competitive (they do not actually dance against each other) like other sports and while dancing is in the Olympics, so are archery and shooting. Are those sports? If you said no, then your 'proof' means nothing. Also, the ability of the people doing it does not change whether it is a sport or not, so stop using those meaningless arguments. As I said before, not everything that is difficult is a sport.
Why dance is a sport

Well, You do know that there is competitive dancing right? Most dancers go perform at competitions to compete against other dancers; Most people like to come to the competitions for entertainment, like other sports. Also if you look at my second picture from the first debate, how many people how do you know that play sports who look like that (very muscular) during a jump yet still have enough control to make the jump graceful? One more thing, you should know that rhythmic gymnastics which is an Olympic sport contain moves from dance. they use the same positions from dance to do things. And rhythmic gymnasts do ballet for control and to get extreme flexibility.
Why dance is a sport

The official definition of 'sport' is 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment'. Dancing is not competitive, ergo it is not a sport. Also, you say that dancers put a lot of effort into what they do and they are put through a lot of pain, so dancing is a sport. Does that make politics, collecting (stamps, coins etc.), architecture and torture sports? I understand that dancers do put themselves through a lot to achieve what they do, but it does not need to be a sport to deserve recognition as a physical challenge.
Why dance is a sport

Dance IS a sport because,1. Dancers must be fit and have amazing core strength.2. Dancing is hard work because you need to to learn French and hundreds of difficult moves.3. Most dancers train year(s) for a couple of minutes on stage4. So you think its easy?! Try to look graceful and not in pain in shoes that have wooden blocks at the tips. (We also bleed sometimes from them) Final reason.5. We bleed,cry,sweat,and sacrifice so many things just so we can do what we love. Dancing. So you still think dance isn't a sport?