BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People Should Retain the Right to Bear Arms

REBUTTALS1. Bear's unresponsibilitySnorlax is amazing. He has the right to sleep. His amazing powers...just wow. Watch the youtube video. Just watch the Youtube video.http://www.youtube.com...(Skip to 4:10 for the important part) As for wrong hands, you obviously didn't read my 2cd argument. As for crippling species, as I said, the Voodoo witch master will serve you for an easy 15$ dollars. Insert needle, get DNA, insert DNA, get bear arms. Plus, bears can always get amazing robot arms.3. ReputationsOnce again, the Voodoo witch is at your service. Just call 1313-3131-666 and you'll get 70% off your first purchase!! "Come to me, my little ones...er, I mean, nice shoppers!"As for the evil one, well, let's just say that he'll prefer the electric chair to what punishment we're giving him...that's right, he's serving in eternity as a servant to the Voodoo Witch!! The witch can be evil if she wants to be. Of course, she's only mean to mean people and evil to evil people, luckily.Back to you, con.
People Should Retain the Right to Bear Arms

1. Bear arms can't be used responsiblyLook at this bear. His obesity is caused by his excessive eating of food. This wouldn't be the case if it weren't for his bear arms. They are causing obesity. Not only that, but in the wrong hands, bear arm can really hurt somebody. As you can see this bear arm is being used to hit a bear in the crotch. This one of the worst things you can do with a bear arm. Think of how you're affecting that guy's family when you're using them in this manner. 2. Allowing people to take bear arms would cripple the species You see that bear? He's crying right now because somebody decided he didn't have a right to his own arms. They were taken away by greedy humans who wanted to break swords. He's gonna live his life being the laughing stock of animals. Simply pushing him over would be enough to overpower him. That shouldn't be his life. Bears should be proud, 'merican animals. They should retain their arms, they obviously have more of a right to them more than we do. Could a bear without arms be able to saddle Mr.Linclon? I think not! Protect the bears!3. Refutations That bear beaking into a car was obviously just trying to get into a car. He could face years in prison just for having arms that are too powerful. Think of how humans having that right would be. This man obviously doesn't know how to use his right to bear arms correctly. That red glint in his eye shows he's just about to go rampaging around. A fat man with those sword-chopping arms? Think of the children! Bear cavalry? How would that be possible if people had the right to bear arms? The humans would be stripping bears of their arms, leaving them all powerless. Bear cavalry is only possible if we protect them, not steal their arms.
People Should Retain the Right to Bear Arms

1. Bear arms are OP in comparison to guns or even swordsBear arms can easily rip apart people. If someone points a gun at your head you can just transform and use your bear arms to destroy the murderer/robber. Bears are pretty dangerous, especially their arms.Source: http://www.bear.org...In fact, bear arms can even break swords!! Since this bear obviously did not steal the key he was forced to break the glass. If he can break this glass and part of the door, he certainly can break swords. Below is an ancient painting of a horrid lost of a massive army against one single bear. Even the secret weapon seen above, the bees, could not stop the bear. 2. Only good guys can get bear armsBears smell's sense is really good. That's why you have to make sure your campsite doesn't smell too good. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...They smell 100 times better than humans! http://sectionhiker.com...In fact, they can smell whether you have good intentions or bad intentions. s://i.imgflip.com...; alt="" />They won't hesitate to rip apart some guy who forcibly tries to get their bear arms. On the other hand good people will easily get bear arms if they ask nicely for it, the bear will take you to the Voodoo witch and the witch will borrow the DNA from the bear's arms to give them to you. 3. Bear + bear equals undefeatable armyNukes and tanks are powerful, alright, but if you have bear arms combined with weaponry AND you're on a bear....well this happens||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Thus we don't have to worry about war because since the US technology researches pretty much the fastest due to the diversity of people we hire, we can stop any war from happening. That's all I got for now. Onto you, con.BTW I really should have made this 3000 characters or something, I'm wasting all the good space! Hopefully I'll use up more in my rebuttals.
God is not real.

IntroductionI'm playing the devil's advocate.Doing more than one thing at once.I, like pretty much everything, can multitask. I can eat a sandwich and wear my favourite top at the same time. But like everything, there are things that are better at multitasking than I am. Perhaps there's a guy who can eat a sandwich, whack something with a stick and wear his favourite top all at the same time. God is this guy who is pretty much perfect. I'm sure he can do a gajillion things all at once, like help a guy win and do more important stuff at the same time.When people say he helped them win something or other, they mean that he helped them have the courage/confidence/strength to do whatever they did.But hang on, how do we know he's really there? Every time something happens, there is a reason why that thing happened and a different thing didn't. That sheep died because his vital organs were squished by the fat cow who sat on him, and he can't live if they're not in mint condition. Now, use this example when talking about the beginning of everything. Unless there is some eternal being that intervened, how can anything happen? Could something have come from nothing? No, because if it did, there would be no reason why that happened and another thing didn't come into existence instead. So, Mr. G exists.End of my roundI've been KingDebater, thank you and see you in the next round.
is god real

Argument #1P1. If God is real, then I'm as good as gold.j. It's because if God was real, he could only create perfect things because he is perfect, and gold is perfect.P2. I'm not as good as gold.j. Deciding whether to buy a pound of gold or a pound of KingDebater is an easy decision.C. Therefore, God is not real. j. Logically follows the first and second premises. Thank you.
The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

I feel a little guilty taking on a new member, but this topic is just way too fun. Still, I accept this challenge and hope for an engaging and entertaining discussion. That means that I'm going to argue, starting next round, that the federal government of the USA should, if for whatever reason they could not choose both, prefer to increase their revenue than reduce their expenditure. I'm going to assume for this debate that the government of the USA actually needs the additional money. Good luck to my opponent - I can't wait to get started!
The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

I'm sorry to say this here but I figured this is the fastest way you will get it... I realized after I posted this debate that I am having finals this week so I don't have all the time in the world. I cannot finish this debate this week. I am terribly sorry. If it would be ok with you, I would like to have "rematch" ,if you will, sometime soon. Again I'm terribly sorry...
The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.

First off, thank you for the welcome! And if you have any notes at the end that would be awesome! I'm a little nervous but here goes nothing ! I'm just going to get right into it and say that I am for the negation on the topic Resolved: the United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts. The main reasons that I believe so are the following: tax increases are unneccesary, tax increases hurt small businesses, and high tax rates hurt the economy. Alrighty, so for my first main point I said tax increases are unneccesary. The reason for this is because of the fact that we are spending 44% more money than we take in, if we give the government more money to spend they will keep putting us in debt which wouldn't help the US in the slightest. Considering that we are spending 3.6 trillion a year and we are already taking valuable money from people why would we want to take more? Also, if we tax the wealthiest 2% of Americans we will be destroying 700,000 jobs and considering that we already have 12.3 million people unemployed that will not help the US get out of the current condition it is in. Now onto my second main point I stated that tax increases kill small businesses. Considering that most small business owners file their income taxes as individual people and not businesses, which is around 85% of small business owners, it makes it look like the owner's personal income may seem large, but in all reality the majority of the money is actually funneled back into the business. According to Patricia Williams "While President Obama has given political payoffs to his top donors, small businesses have been hit hard in the Obama economy." My third main point was that high tax rates hurt the economy. Contrary to most people beliefs, raising taxes doesn't always help the economy. According to George Osborne, "The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax led to a loss in revenues for the Government." Also, an example of how this didn't work, almost two-thirds of the country's million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate tax. So as you can see, they tried to raise taxes in Britain and people left the country because they didn't want to pay the raised tax. In this debate I have proved that raising taxes will hurt not only the economy, but also the people of America which is why you, the voters, must vote in negation.
The law should not discriminate in favor of the gays.

Unfortunately, miscarriages of justice happen all the time, I accept that, but the point I am really trying to make is that the motive for attacking someone should be irrelevant in sentencing the offender. For example, if an attacker objected to another guy in the pub chatting up his girlfriend and the motive for his attack was jealousy he should be punished, of course, but he should not be punished more severely if the guy in the pub was a homosexual who he attacked because the guy chatted him up rather than his girlfriend. At the end of the day, the victim got the same beating so the attacker should get the same punishment, regardless of his motive. Thank you.
The law should not discriminate in favor of the gays.

First of all, I have nothing against gays nor straights, which why would anyone? So basically, the "drunk"? football players came into a gay bar and a gay couple chased out the drunk football players and then beat them up? When it was brought in court, the football players were instead charged for defending themselves and hitting the gays because the judge thought it was discrimination?? If that's true, that is mess-up. The ones beat up shouldn't be arrested! The ones who beat of the innocent people should be. I am saying this on NO regards of sexuality! A criminal is a criminal regardless of their preference. Gosh. However, that was one case. I really do not think the law discriminates in favour for gay people. I'd hope they would fairly judge the case and see who is the criminal and not just assume, if it has gay people involved, they are the innocent ones, because that's not always what happens. Just one thing more, I hope YOU, yes YOU, do not go hating gays all because of this one incident. And heterphobia really doesn't exist.
The law should not discriminate in favor of the gays.

Sadly, it's an all-too-familiar tale. It was Saturday night and six young football fans were out on an innocent pub-crawl celebrating their club's big win that afternoon. The fans were walking between their fifth and sixth pub when they passed the theatre where Billy Elliot the Musical was showing. The performance had just finished and the audience were leaving, and among the crowd are two young men who happened to be homosexuals. Now, when the gay couple spotted the group of pub-crawling football fans pass by they decided to shout heterophobic abuse at them. Because the boozed-up football fans didn't want any trouble, they hurried off, but the gays gave chase and eventually cornered the football fans in a back alley. There, the gays viscously attacked the terrified fans but, luckily, the lagered-up lads managed to escape their arse-ramming assailants. CCTV footage shown later in court showed the terrified young fans running for their lives down the street but, incredibly, the jury were persuaded that, because the young revellers didn't report the incident to the police, they, and not the gay couple, were the aggressors and that they were fleeing the scene of a crime. This claim was given false legitimacy because in the melee in the back alley the gay couple sustained some minor injuries while the drunken football fans were trying to defend themselves and when they regained consciousness in hospital the dirty, lying bastards audaciously told the doctor it was the football fans that had attacked them, not the other way round, and the doctor duly reported the matter to the police. Outrageously, when the case came to court and the football fans were, in a gross miscarriage of justice, found guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm and were each sentenced to three years in jail with an additional year's imprisonment added to each of their sentences because their supposed "victims" happened to be gay. [1] That's because the law in many countries instructs judges to give longer sentences to those convicted of assault where hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation) was an aggravating factor in the offense. [2] This means that if the heroes of this story had been convicted as the result of a fight with rival football fans they would have been sentenced to a year less in jail (unless, of course, they were fighting Brighton and Hove Albion supporters who are all screaming homosexuals). [3] That's ridiculous! Having your head kicked in doesn't hurt any less if you heterosexual so why should your attacker be punished less severely just because you aren't gay? That's why I maintain that the law should apply to everybody equally and the gays should not be receive any special favors. Thank you. [1] https://www.cps.gov.uk... [2] http://www.stonewallcymru.org.uk... [3] http://www.gfsn.org.uk...
Evolution

Thank you for your argument. I definitely will have fun giving rebuttals to these 12 new points of yours :) PARACONFORMITY: The constant shifting of the Earth's tectonic plates results in such anomalies GEOLOGY REVERSED: Again the constant shifting of the Earth's tectonic plates explains all of these RADIOMETRIC DATING: A. Obviously the rock hasn't decayed yet right after being created, so it is not going to contain radioactive "daughter-product" atoms in the beginning. B. New atoms don't just "bond into" rocks unless there was a chemical reaction, and those generally don't happen a lot deep under the Earth's crust. C. Radioactive decay is a very slow and steady process. It does not just randomly shift in speed and manner. So yes, it is safe to assume that the rate of decay has always been the same. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: It is possible that the oil and coal samples they tested were created recently by less ancient animals. Either that or the method itself was invalid. There is much more evidence supporting the fact that oil and coal are millions of years old. PERMANENCE OF KINDS: Animals evolve because they must change to suit their environment. Worms didn't evolve because they were already suited enough to their environments for the population to survive for so long. This is where I'm going to have to stop, as I have only 2 minutes left :( I'm really sorry. It's just that I've been on a trip to a place with no internet access for a few days, and when I got back I had exactly 15 minutes to post my argument for this round. Sorry! If you would like I can post the rest of it in comments...
Republican is better than democrat

Democrats have overwhelmingly become extremely liberal over the past 15 years, more so in the last 5 years. They are not shy about proclaiming how progressive they are. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton spent two hours arguing over which one is more liberal and who will be able to provide more government in the most recent debate. They both got a hug from the moderator, Rachel Maddow(another bias example of the American media). Imagine Rush Limbaugh moderating a Republican debate then hugging Ted Cruz after asking him softball questions. Why do Democrats get to do or say anything they want and the media gives them a pass? I liken the bias to this scenario: There are two sick men: The first man sneezes into a tissue, then washes his hands and then goes to shake your hand. He is treated as though he has the plague and told to remove himself. The second man sneezes in your face, spits on you, rubs snot all over you, then french kisses you. He is told, thanks. That's how Democrats are better. They are indestructible.
Republican is better than democrat

It sounds to me like you're a republican like I am and seem to be downing the democrats which I am doing as well. What I'm saying is that government roles should not be played into everyday day lives and that the republicans are trying to do that. And I know that democrats are trying to tax the rich more but the rich earned that money which should call for a flat tax. If you earned it then you should be able to keep it. And I know that democrats are trying to divide the nation which is why the republicans need to be in here. And I know what you're saying about the border thing. To be honest I completely agree with making our borders more strict and sending illegals back. I believe we are both fighting in favor of republicans here... I can see you are putting democrats down and I agree with you there. Less government control more people power
Republican is better than democrat

Democrats plan to take money from rich people and waste it on government programs that actually make poor people stay poor. They want to open the boarders to allow illegals in, promise them the world, not deliver, but still get them to vote Democrat anyways. Democrats want to divide the nation into groups to label those they like and don't like(The Rich, The Middle class, the poor, Big Oil, The corporations, Wall Street, etc.). It's very easy target an entire group, than single individuals or companies. The mindless eat this stuff up. The media backs Democrats. Nearly every major news outlet is Liberal(Besides Fox news). The editors or producers usually only hire those with left wing beliefs because it matches their own. They group together to take down those that disagree with them. Example: In 2008, a California proposition passed that voted to outlaw gay marriage. This was a vote by the people. It passed something like 52% to 42%. The news articles focused on spewing hatred towards the groups that pushed for the propositions adoption. The news media would constantly cover the endless court battles that were brought forth by gay/liberal groups. When the Supreme court recently allowed gay marriage to be legal, the news media posted nothing but happy people flying rainbow flags all over the place. It was a huge celebration that covered all outlets of the media. What of the 52% that voted against this in liberal California? In 7 years, the media took those 52% of people and made them feel like they are bigots for believing in traditional marriage. In 2016, if you mention that gay marriage is not right, you are outcast. Did 52% of California really change their minds on a centuries old tradition in only 7 years? Or is the media condemning their beliefs to the point of "silence is better than solitude"? The media is biased and the Democrats use that to their utmost advantage. This is the start. Back to you Pro. What do you have to say to that? http://www.wsj.com...
Republican is better than democrat

To start of this round I'd like to state on my behalf that I am a republican but I'm willing to see both sides of things. I look forward to this debate First things first republicans are for the people. No not just the rich people but also poor. They want unemployment down and jobs to go up and less government control which I find to be a needed thing in our society today. America does not need a dictator telling us what to do and how to do it. It's not called land of the free for no reason. Now some laws and regulations I do agree should be enforced like the committing a serious crime and what not but people should have the right to do what they want. A republican is someone who is for the people and I stand by that
Sex Education In Middle School and High School

I do not believe that my opponent is debating with me right now... They are just agreeing with me. Therefore I believe it is obvious who has won. He did mention that he believes the new "grandparents" would help support the baby, but if those people were having trouble supporting their own child, then it is going to be EXTREMELY difficult for them to support a new one! Also whether or not the parents support the baby well enough or not, THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATING THE YOUTH ABOUT TEEN PREGNANCIES AND STD'S... NOT WHETHER THE PARENTS WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE CHILD OR NOT. Please stick to the subject, and since this is my last round to debate and my opponent didn't post a new argument, there is nothing for me to debate against.
Sex Education In Middle School and High School

It should be a good one. Let the best man win. To begin, Sex Education (I may refer to it as S. E. or Sex Ed during the debate) is one of the most important "semi-subject" there is in the school system today. Just as D. A. R. E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is important for middle schoolers, Sex Ed is just as important. Of course, resisting drugs like alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes is crucial to teach to the youth, so are things like condoms, birth control pills, other teen pregnancy prevention, STD's, etc. The teen pregnancy rate in the US has been sky-rocketing:"The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Teenpregnancy. org, a site managed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, states that there are "750,000 teen pregnancies annually. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81 percent are to unmarried teens. " Read more: . http://www.livestrong.com... Must I say much more? If you have read carefully enough, you will notice that they said 1 of 3 pregnancies are before the age of 20! They also stated that 8 of 10 teen pregnancies are unintended. Therefore, if condoms were used, then it would have just been an experience for the two teens and nothing more than that. But now if the "parents" of the newly conceived child decide to keep the baby, let's face it, they are going to struggle to support the baby and its needs. This most likely means one of the parents, or maybe even both, will not graduate from college. That will lead to a poor job, bad pay, etc. Basically, the whole family will struggle financially, and possibly emotionally. Now that I think about it, I am being GENEROUS saying that the baby's parents will struggle, most of the time the father doesn't even stick around! This can lead to putting the child up to adoption, which we all know isn't fair for that kid. I believe I have gotten my point across in this round, and I will wait to hear my opponents response before i state further points.