BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Loose Gun Control

There were three main arguments made in his speech, so I'll number them. 1. Guns and crime Pro: Not everyone will use the gun, some just want it for protection Turn: By saying that "some" only want it for protection, he concedes that others will not, and will desire it for offensive purposes. Pro: People will get guns whether we have loose controls or not This takes out his own argument about self defense. His arguments are predicated on more people getting guns to defend themselves. But if those people will guns even with tight restrictions, we have no incentive to change the status quo. Secondly, he just says that "people" will get guns regardless of their illegality, so I will assume he is referring to people categorically. He gives no warrant to prove that absolutely everybody can get guns with tight restrictions. I argue that even if gun control can stop only a small percentage of people from acquiring these weapons, which is inevitable, society is still that much safer. Pro: England more shootings after control laws Logical fallacy. If A happens then B happens, it doesn't mean A caused B. 2. Getting guns illegally vs legally Pro: Better for more people to get guns legally so we can track weapon I answered this in the last round. It was dropped. Please extend that No Gun > Legal Gun. 3. Con burden Pro: I only attack his arguments I gave a pro argument; guns worsen self defense. He dropped it. Secondly, I dont need to give a ton of my own arguments because he advocates a change in the status quo. Currently there are control laws in place. If I prove his arguments in favor of changing the SQ wrong, we have no incentive to do so. Finally, he also drops Government Tyranny, Break In Deterrance, and Conflict Deterrance. For all of these reasons I urge a con vote. As always, thanks for reading.
Loose Gun Control

I will start off with debating my opponents argument that allowing more gun ownership adds fuel to the fire, my opponent is assuming that if people are allowed to have guns, they will use them. Some people just want guns to feel more powerful and protected. We have no proof that if we allow people to get guns easier than they will use these to commit crimes. I am not saying that anybody should be allowed to have a gun. Obviously if you have committed a crime before you should not be able to get a gun, but the real thing is either way people are going to get guns. People get guns illegally all the time, how do you think people in gang wars, or drug dealers get guns? Do you think they get their guns legally? My answer is no, they get them illegally in the streets. I am not saying that we should give guns to criminals, that is not my intention. All i am saying is people are going to get guns regardless of the laws. Wouldn't you rather them get them legally so we can track the guns than illegally? Your argument saying that it creates more crimes is not true. Here are some facts i found about strict gun control laws put in place with the relationship to crimes: In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported, "In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual. " . http://www.fff.org... My opponent says that more guns create more crimes when it is actually the opposite, less guns equal more crimes. I have the facts, i dont see any sources or backing in my opponents argument saying that more guns will create more crimes. However i have a source that shows less guns create more crime. All my opponent is trying to do is argue against my arguments, when this debate is about loose gun control.
Loose Gun Control

His arguments then mine 1. Guns = Less crime Pro criticized me for not presenting a warrant. However, he continues to give none of his own. At that point we drop this from the debate, as after two rounds there has been no reasoning put behind this argument. I'll get to the attack-from-behind argument in a minute. 2. Guns help fight government if it turns into dictatorship a. New argument b. With the sometimes ridiculous amount of checks on government power, division of the government branches, and the whole point of the constitution being to limit the power of government, I highly doubt that the US government will become a dictatorship anytime soon. c. He gives no link as to how the government could even become one. Its just an "if", with no backing. 3. Unregisred guns I apoliogize, I did misread. Looser gun control encourages people to get more registered guns. Tougher control encourages people to get no guns. Even if he accesses his impact of more registered guns, the safety created by tougher laws creating less gun ownership in the first place outweigh. 4. Break-in deterrance Pro: Not all criminals know when the owner isn't home I know that. My argument is that they likely wait until they are absolutely sure no one is there. If they know the owner of the house has a gun, like you imply, then the effect is magnified. With this threat, the criminal will make absolutely sure that the owner isn't home when he makes his break in. 5. Right to bear arms source Dont take it so seriously, the joke should have been obvious. 6. Guns worsen self defense Pro: If you dont have a gun, others can harm you more easily Already answered. Having a gun encourages harm to come from behind rather than from the front. Chances of defending yourself from a surpise attack are significantly less than the alternative. Pro: Guns prevent confrontations other than when one is trying to directly harm you Guns are typically only used to defend from direct attacks. If I start arguing with someone about abortion, its unlikely that they will whip out a gun and shoot me for it. I know this, so I wont feel afraid of continuing the argument. In the case of bullying, its still unlikely for someone to shoot another for just saying a few bad words. Still no deterrance. My opponent dropped my argument that allowing more gun ownership adds fuel to the fire, creating more crime, and that control laws do not violate the second amendment. Please extend these. I honestly can win based off the crime argument alone. For all of these reasons I urge a con vote.
Loose Gun Control

You talk about me not having a warrant, meanwhile you have no warrant that proves if two people have a gun that person will attack the other from behind. You have no idea that person 1 is smart enough to attack from behind, unwarranted assumption. Also, if we have less guns, than we are being oppressed by the government because we will have nothing to fight back with if there is ever a dictatorship. That is why we have the right to bear arms, so we can fight back if there is ever a need. If my opponent was reading my debate he would understand my point about unregistered guns. I said that there are crimes where illegal guns are used and the suspects are never found because the gun was unregistered or obtained illegally. I will state this again and hopefully my opponent reads it this time, if all guns are registered, than when a gun is used in a crime it will be easier to catch the perpetrator. According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% I found this statistic on this website http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... Another point my opponent made was a criminal breaking into a house when the owner isn't home. Another unwarranted assumption, he is assuming that all criminals are smart enough to know when the owner isn't home. Not all robbers are as smart as the ones you see in movies. As for your source on the right to bear arms, there is no reason for me to do research on something you present. Therefore i will not leave the debate to do your work for you. If you want to include a source, use the information in the debate, i will not waste my time. As for your "guns worsen self defense" argument, if one is looking to harm you, and you don't have a gun it is much easier for them to harm you. Also, your argument is states only if the person is trying to harm you. What about when people don't have an intention on hurting you. Having a gun prevents confrontation, if someone has a gun your not going to start problems with them for no reason. This stops people from getting bullied and picked on by bigger, stronger people.
Loose Gun Control

Thanks for introducing ths debate. Good luck. However, my opponent has not given any resolution whatsoever. I will assume we will just debate whether or not the average person should be allowed to own a gun. I'll have one very short point for this round. First however, I'll go over his arguments. His points had no real structure or fomatting, so I'll just pick them out as I seem them. 1. If everyone had a gun it would reduce crime a. Warrant please? b. When 68% of murders are committed with a gun (1), allowing more people to have them is just adding fuel to the fire. If we want to reduce this type of death, the answer is to have less guns, not more. 2. If two people (supposedly in a conflict) both have guns, neither has control. Control is meaningless. If person 1 is intending to harm person 2, knowing person 2 has a gun, there will be no face-to-face confrontation where "control" would be necessary. Person 1 will make sure he attacks from behind, ensuring that person 2 does not have a chance to retaliate with his own gun. 3. Criminal wont break into a house where the owner has a gun. No, he probably wont. What you dont realize though is that he probably wont break in if the owner doesn't have a gun either. He likely waits for the owner to leave, then makes his move. 4. Most guns are unregistered No sources behind this. But more importantly, no impact whatsoever. Why does this matter? He never tells us. 5. Right to bear arms a. The right to bear arms is about source 2, contrary to what you may believe. b. Even if you dont buy that (though I dont see how you couldn't), we only limit the right to bear arms, we dont eliminate it. We only require a permit for ownership. Thats the main reason that most gun control laws haven't been overturned on grounds of your argument. My argument 1. Guns worsen self defense As previously shown, if one is looking to harm you, knowing you have a gun, they're more likely to refrain from direct combat and instead attack from behind. This gives you a lesser chance of defending yourselfas you are now defending from a surprise attack rather than a frontal one. Furthermore, if the attacker himself has a gun, you're screwed whether you have one or not, as all he has to do is get the first shot off and you're too blinded by pain to respond. I've purposely kept this short, but I'll expand if my opponent has a decent response. I urge a con vote, thank you. 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://coto2.files.wordpress.com...
Loose Gun Control

Gun control is something that has been controversial for a long time in america. Yet year after year you see crimes and robbery's all over America. If everyone had a gun in their house it would reduce crimes. Guns equal power, if a man has a gun and the other is unarmed he is in control of the situation. However if both the people have a gun nobody is in control and one person wont have power over the other. If a criminal knows that the owner of the house that he is about to rob has a gun, than they will think twice about it. Also, with illegal guns roaming the streets, when there is a gun crime the gun is often unregistered. If everyone has a gun that is registered and a crime is committed it is much easier to track the ownership of the gun. I know that there will be scenarios where guns are stolen, and cant be traced when used in crimes. No matter what there will always be faults in the system. I am just stating my position and that is everyone should have the right to own a gun unless they have a criminal back round. I mean the right to bear arms is the second amendment and with out that right the people are being oppressed.
Everyone should join the Church of Scientology because Tom Cruise did it.

Yes, if people like being sucked into a cult where you are exploited for money, and then harassed when wanting to leave, so be it. Tom Cruises own personal decision should be completely irrelevant when choosing if they want to join or not. Since there is nothing left to debate, let me raise awareness of the evils of Scientology! http://www.xenu.net... http://whyaretheydead.net... http://www.youtube.com... Thanks for the debate solo.
Everyone should join the Church of Scientology because Tom Cruise did it.

I completely agree. People should not join the Church of Scientology because of Tom Cruise did it. If they choose to join because that is their calling, then power to them, and I hope they appreciate being exploited and taken advantage of; I simply think they should avoid it as a matter of personal opinion. Joining a religion because a celebrity has done it is in poor judgement. Thank you for debating!
Everyone should join the Church of Scientology because Tom Cruise did it.

Hello solo. I am not a proponent of the "Church" Of Scientology, and I am actually a contributor in Operation Chanology (I'm sure you've heard of it.) Despite Tom Cruises wild and erratic behavior in public, people should not be swayed in their decision to join simply based on an individuals behavior. Tom Cruise does not show what you will do once you join the Church, rather it shows what Tom Cruise did after he joined. If people were to be dissuaded from joining the Church, it should be because of their beliefs, not the actions of one member who is quite possibly crazy.
Movies Today: Old News or New Ideas

Shakespeare wrote , "The poet toys with the old idea that 'there is nothing new under the sun." Movies tend to follow a typical set of rules and guidelines. Sometimes movies that seem to break these guidelines come along and we remember them. Identity was not one of them. By that I mean one that broke the rules. The way it was presented was unique. But the basic rules of the genre were the same. Identity is basically a who done it story. These stories are detective stories. One of the rules of this genre is that the audience must have the opportunity to solve the crime. That means that the audience has to be shown everything that is needed to figure out who is doing the crime. A clever person can figure out the the murderer. Roger Ebert wrote , "Altogether, there are 10 guests. One by one, they die. Agatha Christie fans will assume that one of them is the murderer--or maybe it's the clerk...I think it is possible that some audience members, employing [my] Law of Economy of Characters, might be able to arrive at the solution slightly before the movie does." "And Then There Were None" is a who done it style book written by Agatha Christie. The plot? 10 characters arrive at a deserted location...they start getting killed off one by one. Sound familiar? It was recreated into several films itself. The question was asked, "if they were as predictable as some may say, then why are so many people still going to see them?" One of the rules for beginning screen writers is to keep it around 90 minutes long. Why? Because people don't want to sit in a theater much longer than that. Structure is very important in screenplays. Ever hear Kevin Smith talk about working on big budget films? He talks about how you must have an action beat every so many pages. Then this has to happen hear. This structure is very important in films. Many of the rules and guidelines for each genre come into being specifically with the audience in mind. Romantic comedies almost always follow the patter of boy meets girl. At least one of them falls in love. There is some conflict that keeps them apart. They finally resolve the conflict. That is what people go to see when they watch a romantic comedy. It doesn't stop there. Overall themes are often repeated. Good vs Evil is one of the most common themes in films? Why is is so common? Because that is what people want to watch. We enjoy that struggle on some level. We are creatures of habit. To show how little most people like surprises....Books are one of the most popular sources for films. What happens when a film is adapted to from a novel? Changes are made. What happens (which baffles me)? People complain. They want the film to be just like the book. No change. Just to close how I started. My opening quote was by Shakespeare. It is often said that he plagiarized his works. Why? Because he copied from what was popular. Why? Because he understood that is what people wanted. I would wager that it dates back as far as we have story telling.
Movies Today: Old News or New Ideas

Debate No. 3 (see previous debate for explanation) I was at work the other day and a few us got to talking, the topic, are the movies of today really any different than movies of the past. This discussion wasn't about better graphics and CGI and special effects. We were discussing plot lines and substance. Basically, do movies ever really surprise us anymore or are the endings predictable? I'm actually of two minds on the subject but for the purpose of this debate I'm going to argue the side of, No, movies aren't any more predictable than they were twenty years ago. One really excellent example of this is the movie Identity. If you've never seen it then you don't know but if you have...well tell me, were you able to predict the ending? And if you say yes I'm going to be real blunt and say it right now, liar. Anyhow, movies are still entertaining and fun to watch, and if they were as predictable as some may say, then why are so many people still going to see them? On a side note, I don't debate to win or lose, I don't debate to a resolution or whatever. I debate because I enjoy having intelligent, fun and sometimes heated arguments with those who don't agree with me. Heck, I love arguing with myself, which is why I'm so often on the fence on issues. So go ahead and debate with me but just know that it's all in fun and I, for one, am not taking it all that seriously. At least not on the matter of movies.
Test Debate

1) Yes the are . http://www.youtube.com... for pictures. You can see in this debate that you can bring out pictures. . http://www.debate.org...;2) Criteria for voting is filling out the following: Who did you agree with before the debate? Who did you agree with after the debate? Who had better conduct? Who had better spelling and grammer? Who had more convincing arguements? Who had better sources? (some debates require a RFD or Reason For Decission). http://www.debate.org...3) Click on the Rich Text Button> Click on Font family arrow> Click on the Font that you want.
Fundamentalism is a bigger threat to belief in God than Atheism.

However, not that the title of the argument is not 'religion' but belief in God. And my original argument still stands. 1. Fundamentalists across the globe invariably insist that their way is the only way. They also assert that their scripture is perfect word of God,ignoring even scientific advancements. They also interpret religious books that are full of symbolism and allegory literally, thus not only the beauty, but the metaphysical inner meaning of those texts is lost. 2. Because they seem to be following the texts to the letter, many people believe that the fundamentalist version is the correct version,when in fact, most religious texts were never meant to be interpreted at face value, thus not only are they following an incorrect interpretation themselves,they also make the true believers who follow the scripture in spirit seem like they are cherry picking. The fact that con says that conquering of unbelieving peoples, something that only fundamentalists push for is somehow integral to christian-Islamic faith shows how this is true. The actions of a small over-zealous minority result in all the followers of that religion getting the blame. 3. Sola scripturum, or belief only in the Bible and Wahabism in Saudi Arabia may seem like they are following the original version of their religion, but these movements began atleast a thousand years after the death of Jesus and Mohammed respectively. 4. Because of their unscientific claims, most ordinary people are made to think that religion is somehow nonsensical hence they loose faith in God. The biggest claim made by atheists is that religion cannot be scientific, and most of the arguments they make are against fundamentalist interpretations. Thus many believers who do not know of their religion loose their faith. Hence my claim that it is a bigger threat to belief in God Thus fundamentalism is undermines true belief in God in two ways :1. By overlooking the metaphorical and inner meaning of scripture and following an overly simplistic literal interpretation. Thus, making those who interpret them in spirit seem like they are cherry picking. 2. By making irrational and unscientific claims and then telling that those beliefs are necessary for a belief in God, thus making other moderate followers either seem stupid, or forcing those who think rationally to become atheists. Thus fundamentalism is the biggest threat to belief in God.
Fundamentalism is a bigger threat to belief in God than Atheism.

How fundamentalists perceive the world they inhabit, without question, affects they way they interact with it. I do not however view fundamentalism as an imminent threat to a belief in a higher power. If I may direct you to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org..., it's easy to extrapolate that fundamentalism isn't a threat to the belief in a god-figure any more than being of an educated, affluent, white/ Asian background. The rise and persistence of fundamentalism in your sample country, Saudi Arabia, isn't in part due to a psychological folly, religion in ingrained in the political process, at work, in leisure, and in the daily lives of Saudis. The authority to press fear inside of the minds of ordinary Saudis in the materialistic world is the preferred method of retaining believers, as I'm sure whoever is reading this can attest to by the occasional media coverage of the beheading of women for speaking out or adolescents for masturbation. Fundamentalist God-belief in Saudi Arabia has undoubtedly been upheld by tradition and force. A decline in religious belief is not the rise of atheism, it's the decline of religion. The decline of religion however hasn't been replaced by atheism in most instances, most notably the United States, where religion has been replaced by a liberal sort of personal deism. The number of actual atheists in the U.S. stands at roughly 2%, whereas the irreligious stands at 19% (see Wikipedia article above). Religion has the side-effect as you said in antagonism of "curbing scientific progress and infringing on others freedom", because it can be argued through observing centralized religion's actions (in the case of Christian-Islamic fundamentalism, excluding Judaism). It's written into liturgy, hymns, and even the Bible/Qu'ran itself; the conquering of unbelieving peoples is a main theme, so the idea that infringing on the freedoms of others isn't a goal per se is by the very nature of official institutional texts, false. Modern atheism, in the U.S. at least is a byproduct of religious freedom, secular education, materialistic comforts, and as always your environment, among other innumerable factors.