BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

Contention #1: Anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.There is no way to prove that someone has discriminated unless they admit to it. If an employer interviews several people for a job and rejects someone who is black, how will anyone know whether it was discrimination? Many people will believe that it was, but there is no way to prove it. People can discriminate with or without these laws.Contention #2: Businesses that discriminate harm themselves by doing so.If a business denies service to someone, that lowers their profit. If they reject the most qualified applicant for a job, the one they accept will be less likely to benefit their business. Those businesses will be less successful than others that don't discriminate.Contention #3: Employers often have legitimate reasons to discriminate.If someone opens a Mexican restaurant, it makes sense if they want all of their employees to be Mexican. If a store owner doesn't want to hire an autistic cashier, that's fine because cashiers need to have effective communcation skills. There's no reason you should prevent them from doing that.Contention #4: Even if they discriminate for a reason that is arguably illegitimate, people have the right to their opinion.If someone hates a certain religion, let them discriminate against people of that religion. If someone is uncomfortable with hiring a transgender, they don't have to.ConclusionAnti-discrimination laws are ineffective and prevent people from discriminating when they have legitimate reasons to do so.
The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

This debate should be impossible to accept. If you are somehow able to, do not accept it. Comment if interested. I will select my opponent in a few days. DefinitionsUSFG- United States Federal GovernmentAnti-discrimination laws- Laws against denying service or employment to an individual on the basis of his or her age, biological sex, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identityPrivate sector- All institutions that do not receive government fundingI will be arguing that anti-discrimination laws should not apply to the private sector. Round Structure1. Acceptance2. Opening arguments3. Rebuttals and Defense4.
The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

As a reminder to my opponent about his own words referring the contents of round 5; “5. Conclusions (no new arguments)” The word refutation does not appear in Round 1 rules - I plan to repeat previous arguments, better articulated to refute my opponent. The point of ADL is to give those victimized an avenue to address the damages caused (lossed wages, housing etc). It is a moral stance against racism/sexism/homophobia which has obvious consequences in terms of dehumanization and the perpetuation of poverty. In the past it took an act of congress and many Supreme court cases to establish this. Whether racism/sexism/homophobia exist today or not at all - it is ADL that deters bigotry or allows those effected to have a rebuttal. To repeal ADL would allow bigotry for its own sake, Pro has given no other reason than there perhaps are some good reasons (no reasons given) – yet he ignores that current ADL does allow for some business related discrimination such as Hooters or acting jobs. Pro says that discrimination harms business, but ignores that fact that racism/sexism etc operates on majority power, like in the 50’s a majority of white people could economically exclude blacks because of higher population and near economic monopoly. Only in a society free of bigotry could ADL be reasonably repealed, my opponent has mocked this possibility with poor attempts at math but not proves discrimination is rare. I’ve shown at least 15% of court cases occur with success, proving discrimination and many settlements by corporations who know their guilt. In regard to the ‘personal attack’ claimed - Pro gave his own opinions on BLM and the mental health of gays. Both of his opinions were prejudice which he said did not exist in society, his own existence proves otherwise. Pro says that ADL promotes discrimination – this is a new argument unsubstantiated. In conclusion ADL is still neccesary, it allows for minorities to address grievances. It keeps the business class on its toes to be more economically inclusive giving jobs to those who wouldn't’t have a fair chance, and it sets a moral tone for equality. All of these elements are necessary for a cohesive society. To repeal ADL would be a return to the past. The majority can abuse the minority with no redress. Pro admits discrimination hurts business, by repealing ADL the only result would be more discrimination thus unesscecary economic damage would occur under Pro’s plan. ADL has historical reason, and those reasons still stand today as discrimination still occurs.
The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

As a reminder to my opponent, this is the concluding round. No new arguments or refutations should be made.Contention #1: Anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.I have shown throughout the debate that ADL doesn't stop discrimination. Discrimination lawsuits are often settled by employers and rarely succeed.Contention #2: Businesses that discriminate harm themselves by doing so.I have demonstrated how discrimination harms businesses and ADL supports businesses that discriminate.Contention #3: Discrimination is rare either way.My opponent has failed to show any evidence that prejudice is still common. He presents a lot of red herrings and personal attacks, but has not proven anything.ConclusionADL denies business the right to discriminate for what are often legitimate reasons, it supports businesses that discriminate, and it is ineffective and unneeded regardless.
Yuiru will win this debate

Although none of the Con's arguments can be accepted as I've already forfeited and he's already won, I'll clear a few things up. On the Paradoxical Argument:My opponent claims that this is a paradox as there is no way for him to win. However, the only for this to turn into a paradox would be if an actual argument occured over the resolution. If that were the case, then there would in fact be a paradox. However, there was no actual debate over the round. I, TheOrator, have forfeited the round. By the rules of every formal debating format that I've heard of, this means that my opponent, in this case Yuiru, will have to win. There's no way around that. As my opponent has won, the resolution is upheld, and according to the rules of this site, if the resolution is proven to be upheld (in this case by my forfeit) then the Pro has won the debate. On the Forfeit:My opponent states "And now that you have said there is no one to lose, because you have forfeited. This means no competition and therefor no ability to lose or win. ". Although the grammar was pretty bad in that, I think it means that because I said I forfeited no one can lose or win and so the con succeeds. However, a concession means exactly the opposite. As I have conceded, I have automatically been declared the loser, and so Yuiru is declared the winner. As Yuiru has won, the Pro receives the vote.
Yuiru will win this debate

Question answer: Yu's "u" as in YouI's "Ee" as in PeeAnd Ru's "u" as in EwwAll in a breathy voice.Yue-Ee-Rue　ユイルor you can call me Johnny, Johnny Depp.Join the yuiru crew! "Actually, as I've forfeited, there's no way in which you could lose. Even if you forfeited now it couldn't work as you don't have an opponent to forfeit to. As the loser has already been decided, you must be made the winner, and so the resolution has been upheld."But you forget on thing:This entire debate is insolubilia!Say for a second I was pro!If I win, therefore the resolution is proven true, and I win... If I lose, the resolution is proven false.. and I lose.But since I am con ,I am debating I will lose.If I win, the resolution is proven true, meaning I lose... If I lose, there resolution is proven false, meaning I win.It is a paradox ad infinitum."C2 Rebuttal:"Maybe, but Yuiru has already lost the debate!!!"Check the C1 rebuttal."I said that because this debate is a double binding paradox!"As I conceded the argument before you posted any arguments, those arguments cannot be accepted as they were made after the round was already over. Since there is no way the argument can now progress in any other direction than Yuiru's eventual win, vote pro!."But I can not win, it is a vicious circularity of infinite regress.In fact, I can't even lose.And now that you have said there is no one to lose, because you have forfeited.This means no competition and therefor no ability to lose or win.Its a no win or lose situation because of how contradictory it is.There is a simple solution to this paradox that Pro has failed to state, therefore it remains I can not win, and will lose this debate, thus wining, and so on ad infinitum.Vote Pro, Con, or Tie!Either way I DO NOT WIN!!Let con have their way!
Yuiru will win this debate

C1 Rebuttal:"Yes, but you are still wining and therefore yuiru is losing!"Actually, as I've forfeited, there's no way in which you could lose. Even if you forfeited now it couldn't work as you don't have an opponent to forfeit to. As the loser has already been decided, you must be made the winner, and so the resolution has been upheld.C2 Rebuttal:"Maybe, but Yuiru has already lost the debate!!!"Check the C1 rebuttal.Opponent's Case:As I conceded the argument before you posted any arguments, those arguments cannot be accepted as they were made after the round was already over. Since there is no way the argument can now progress in any other direction than Yuiru's eventual win, vote pro!.Question to Opponent:How do you pronounce Yuiru?
Yuiru will win this debate

"Contention 1: Voting"Yes, but you are still wining and therefore yuiru is losing! "Contention 2: I concede." Maybe, but Yuiru has already lost the debate!!! "As I have now lost, Yuiru has won, and the resolution is proven correct."If Yuiru wins then Yuiru ultimately loses!!!! This would prove the resolution incorrect!It is impossible for Yuiru to win the resolution!Vote pro!!!Why you should vote pro:Yuiru has used huge fallacious arguments!!Performative Contradiction - Yuiru is using a self-refuting idea/paradox:Example: "This statement is false" if it is false it is true, if its true it is false.Yuiru's version: Yuiru debates Yuiru will lose the debate. If yuiru wins yuiru loses, if yuiru loses yuiru wins.Ignoratio elenchi - Yuiru brings up an irrelevant issue: yuiru losing another debate in the past.Special pleading - Yuiru assumes if they were to lose the same ad infinitum argument can not be applied.Argumentum ad infinitum and chain reaction argument - Yuiru is arguing that he is correct because of a non-terminating process that Yuiru can not win because of.Bidirectional causation - Yuiru argues that because wining is associated with wining, that therefore wining causes losing.Circular reasoning/paradoxical thinking - Yuiru's argument if examined basically goes like this:Yuiru will inevitably loseTherefore Yuiru will lose. False dichotomy - Yuiru asserts the only possible outcome is a win or a lose, yet ignores the possiblity of a tie!Ad hominem argument (in multiple forms) - Yuiru claims because Yuiru is not a human, lost other debates, likes losing, and intentionally uses fallacious arguments that they will lose.Fallacy fallacy - Yuiru assumes that because Yuiru's arguments are fallacious, Yuiru therefore should lose.Since pro has conceded then pro has won:Based on TheOrator's first contention, by his second contention, the only possible outcome is Yuiru losing.Yuiru concedes pros stance:I concede both now, in the above, and even before pro did.I rest on my case.
Yuiru will win this debate

I accept this challenge, and I will start with my opening argument since I'm the pro. Contention 1: VotingThis simply discusses what I need to do to win. In order to, I simply need to get my opponent to win. Obviously, this is done by my losing. Therefore, if at any point in the debate I lose, I therefor win, and am proven correct. Contention 2: I concede. I forfeit the debate, meaning I lose automatically. As I have now lost, Yuiru has won, and the resolution is proven correct.
Homosexual characters should be on Children's TV shows

Right away I’d like to say I’m exceedingly excited to be having this conversation. I sincerely look forward to a productive discussion and debate.For the sake of this discussion, I will be assuming that the information and numbers you have presented to me are factual and at least mostly accurate. I totally agree that what we see happening to these people is awful, and is something that needs to be worked out. However, I do not think that the indoctrination of children, nor the use of television ‘role-models’ is the way in which to achieve this goal.It is observable that most children do not hit puberty until the age of 10-16. (girls being 10-14, boys being 12-16) Since the gap is so late in their life, I find it pointless to incorporate homosexual couples into the whole equation, when it is already complicated enough to those too young to understand. (Those being aged 0-10) To have a child both a male and a female are required, and throwing curveballs like two men at children will simply confuse them.The article you have cited explained how help can be delivered to these people, and research also shows that it’s working. Shouldn’t this be the big picture – getting these kids help where it really matters? Growing up I didn’t need a role model to tell me being gay was okay. Even if I did, fictional characters should not be the place to turn. We see many examples of real people, real homosexuals, doing great and wonderful things like Ellen DeGeneres, Anderson Cooper, and Peter Thiel. Shouldn’t that be what these kids look up to?I’d also like to look briefly at the numbers cited about social and more rarely physical abuse on homosexuals. Isn’t that a good thing given the right circumstances? Don’t take that the wrong way, but that’s what’s going to grow you. When people make comments about me, that does two things. That one, grows me and makes me stronger and two, more importantly, shows me who I don’t need to waste my time with. Having something about you that stands out helps you weed out the people that you don’t want to be friends with anyways. So in light of this, I don’t think we should be normalizing homosexuality. I think we should celebrate the uniqueness of it. We should understand the differences of homosexuals, and highlight those differences that make them who they are – not hide them.Sources:http://www.medicinenet.com...;
Homosexual characters should be on Children's TV shows

Please keep this civil, no slurs or swearing unless essential for arguments I'm defining children's TV shows as any show targeted at children 0-12. Positive examples For any children who might discover that they're gay at a later age it would be very beneficial for them to have some sort of person that they look up to or at least know that went through their situation. Television has a strong influence on children[1]. Having a role model that went through the same things they're going through and knowing what they are and that they're is nothing wrong with them can aid in the depression that many gay teens youths[2]. With confusion about their feeling and the added stigma that comes with being gay plus the consequences: their parents possibly throwing them out, bullying at school. One less problem could be the difference between life and death. Breaking the stigma against gay youth 74% of gay youth are verbally harassed in school[2]. Even at young ages ,children are using gay as a way to express their distaste for something. Some of these people grow up to be homophobes. The fact is when young children are growing up, before their in school their only exposure to the outside world is their parents, brief interactions at the park and outside in general, and television. Meaning that if these small children happen to be raised by homophobic or intolerant parents that's how they'll see the world. The only way for them to see the world differently is through television. With characters like two dads or moms getting 8 apples at the grocery store or Billy having two moms. Eventually as they get older and TV characters start dating so would Billy and Jacob. It would be exactly the same as always except with the incorporation of homosexual characters. With this constant exposure kids would see sexual orientation the same way as they see interracial couples, as two people that so happen to be dating or married[3]. Citation [1]. http://www2.lewisu.edu... [2]. http://www.healthline.com... [3]
Homosexual characters should be on Children's TV shows

"But just as any other religion there would be an increase in tolerance. I live in Brampton, Ontario which has a lot of Muslims in it....But if Muslims follow in christian foot steps then gradually they'll begin to accept gay people[1] just as everyone else did."Please allow me to share some quotes from the Qur'an.We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? (80) "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (81) Whomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lut then kill the one doing it, and the one it is done toThis sin, the impact of which makes one’s skin crawl, which words cannot describe, is evidence of perverted instincts, total collapse of shame and honor, and extreme filthiness of character and soul… The heavens, the Earth and the mountains tremble from the impact of this sin. The angels shudder as they anticipate the punishment of Allah to descend upon the people who commit this indescribable sin.Now before you compare this to the bible, it is important to understand that these are very different. In the Old Testament God himself was governing a nation of his chosen people. Christians today, in the age of grace - after the death and resurrection of christ, are not bound to the rules for God's nation, because we are not of his nation. Christianity is completely compatible with modern civilization and culture, given that it does not transgress their religious freedoms. Islam, however, is not. The Qur'an is speaking to the believers of today, and they are bound to its teachings. Allow me to read some more verses. "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision.""Allah... makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule""...Allah and his messenger are free from obligation to the unbelievers..."Muhammad used this to dissolve a standing treaty and chase non-Muslims from their homes if they wouldn't accept Islam. This practice would be completely and entirely incompatible with democratic rule, in which everyone is considered equal. I have read the Qur'an cover to cover, and I can say that without a doubt Islam is incompatible with democracy. Aside from that, I'm out of sorts. It's important to know when to fold your cards. When I accepted this debate I was under the impression that it was on a slightly different subject. In heindsight I totally agree with many of the points you've presented here, and must applaud you for that.
DNA Databases/ Profiling

Yes it can help with finding new genetic diseases, but scientists already have enough medical leads. Is having DNA on profile overstepping a person"s privacy? According to the European Court of Human Rights, any DNA that is taken should be legally discarded after the case of any crime is closed. That is not the case as of today. Many law enforcement personnel and the government have been keeping DNA files in the database despite how the person came out (guilty or innocent). Over 500,000 people have been convicted of crimes because of their matching DNA. The genetic code is universal which means that people everywhere could have some matching DNA and that makes it easier to be wrongly convicted. Having being wrongly convicted and having the DNA file kept oversteps one a person"s privacy. "Imagine the scenario: You happen to match the physical description of a serial burglar and you are brought in for questioning and then placed under arrest. The next day, you"re freed. Mistaken identity is all you leave with. Later, you realize that there is one thing left behind, your DNA. Your DNA will now be on file for 30 years. How do you feel?" (The New Atlantis). You have just given away your privacy and who you really are. The Prum Treaty was signed allowing other countries to access the DNA of an individual if that person is suspected to be guilty in their country. By having your DNA on file, other countries along with the government of your own state have access to your DNA. This means that the person is no longer just any person, he/she is a person that belongs to the government in a way. DNA databases and profiling should not be allowed because it leads to ethical/legal problems, does not require any consent, the government can access your information, the police can lie about the data, and the person who has the DNA on file is no longer in their own privacy.
DNA Databases/ Profiling

Yeah, it can trace back to other people besides the criminal, but they did get of prison. Its not like they found guilty and sentenced for a longer amount of time. The police had eventually found the real criminal and he was arrested. It doesn't just help with the finding of criminals it also helps with finding different genetic diseases. As Markus MacGill had stated in the medicalnewstoday.com, " The sharing of large amounts of DNA data can enable researchers to predict and treat serious disease. " Having this can save lives. This can give more hope and opportunity to those that have this genetic disease or could have this. Why should we give this up for some set backs? We have the ability to predict certain diseases.
DNA Databases/ Profiling

You stated that the DNA on file could help find abducted children and who the kidnapper was. Yes it can help with identifying the child, but many people can match that description as I had mentioned above. This could mean that many people are brought in and most will be charged until they can figure out who the real kidnapper was. According to Alan Travis of theguardian.com, "the current system "violates privacy rights" but judges have not ordered immediate change, as the new legislation is passed." This means that new laws are being made to control the system of databases, but judges in court systems have the official right to not follow those laws depending on the court case. All states allow DNA data to be used by law enforcement. This means that now, the information is used by the government and law enforcement personnel. According to "DNA Profiles of Those Wrongly Convicted", in 1997, two men were released from prison after their DNA proved them innocent. The police on the case kept the data on file which gives the judge the right to view and use their data again. That is illegal in many states. The police and government have been taking advantage of the database
DNA Databases/ Profiling

DNA databases can help with the loss of children. If a person were to abduct a child or if the child were to run away, we could find them. Since we have everybody' s DNA we would be able to find out what the child looks like and what the child can look like in a certain amount of years. Also if the child were to be abducted we could also figure out who the abductor is by using the DNA that has been found from the area of which the crime took place, and by using the DNA databases we would figure out who was the person who had abducted the child. This is very helpful in society. We could help those families that have went through this tragedy. We can keep them up to date with the progress we made instead of leaving them, and they not knowing whether their family member can be found or not.