BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

No worries, I've been tying on my phone most of this debate so I understand. 1) My point was that people are more likley to go to support the black market for drugs because all of them are illegal. with guns, people will gravitate more towards lower capacty legal guns. - Also, I never said that assault weapons are the only thing I would ban. I would go for several solutions, my point is that there needs to be some sort of regulation thats more than now. I dint necissarily claims to know which refulation would work best with our partivilar situation, though im definetely for a magazine restriction. But maybe instead of banning any gun, we have background checks ad limits on where you can bring the gun. -Also in addressing your point about the high capacity magazine ban; You say that if we ban high capacity magazines then they would still be available. They would still be harder to get, on one hand, and on the other hand, the sinole fact that they are illegal would help. If you can walk down the street and legally buy a high capacity magazine, no one can stop you. But if your buying it illegaly, we can stop you and prevent a tragedy. You seem to be saying you shouldnt pass a law because someone might break it. 2) Again, you can't not pass gun control in case there might be a mass facist style confiscation. Its a little bit paranoid. You forget that it wasnt just a gun ban or confiscation, a lot of propoganda was required to convince the public to not rise up against the atrocities because they thiught it was for the greater good. Again, I believe it is very reasonabke tosay we have eveolved as a nation to the point where no ine is going to be in a concentration camp. 3) There are many factors that go into a crime rate, but t is a very signifigant pattern that mass shootings on this scale happen no where else on the deceloped non warzone world, and gun control is the common debominator.
Gun Control

1. A law abiding citizen would not go through the trouble to get an illegal gun. I never said they would. But a criminal or criminal organization very well could obtain them with ease. Also you say keep your hunting rifles and that we should ban assault weapons. I don't believed you have addressed my numbers and calculations that I made in the first round stating, overall, assault weapons were used in an extreme minority of violent crimes. Therefore, banning these I think would have little actual effect on crime rates, and as history has shown, prohibition rarely ever works and people would still be able to get them from gun traffickers, illegal manufacture, etc. You also say that not all guns would be illegal, yet all drugs are. I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. It's kind of like saying, we're going to legalize marijuana, but nothing else, therefore people will not do other drugs like cocaine. Or maybe your trying to say people will just use the legal guns to kill people. And some will, but if people want higher capacity magazines, they will be able to get them. I think what you are saying is hat because some of the category is legal, people won't use the other ones. Again, I point to my early example about drugs. Because marijuanna is legal, but everything else isn't, will not stop people from using other drugs. 2. A nazi like takeover is unlikely in America, however things like New Orleans are very capable of happening, and FDR imprsioning people in camps, even though not likely in the near future, it does not have to nesaccarily be ethnic based, and something like this could be implanted if they want to take advantage of an event or the populations fear. Also, I do believe that Hitler did say that, and I can provide a link to some of his gun control laws. "In Nazi Germany the March 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law" from wikipedia This law also barred Jews from selling and making it significantly harder for them to acquire firearms 3. As for Japan and Australalia, there can be multiple factors in determining a crime rate, again. Any way sorry for this being so short but I'm typing on my iPhone and I don't have much time.
GMOs should not have to be labeled

Interesting that my opponent forfeits r1, but I suppose I'll post an argument just in case he does come back. I'll keep it short. Pros CaseEveryone has a right to know what they are consuming. That's why product information is clearly labeled on all food containers. You can see the ingredients, the calories, and other information that you may or may not find useful. All ingredients, though, must be labeled, as false advertising is deceptive and harmful to capitalism. Therefore, if a food contains GMO, people have a right to know if they want to. There must be a label somewhere on the package. It doesn't have to be right on the front. But there must be one somewhere.
Mystery Debate #2

Hello everyone. I am The_Master_Riddler and I have the second edition to my mystery debate. I will post a mystery in round two. Con will ask me 3 questions. Ask me any more and it is a total forfeit. I will answer those questions in round three and con will answer who killed the person. I will post the rest of the riddle at the end of the debate and award con with a win or lose. If he wins, then he gets all 7 points. However, if he loses, I get all 7 points.
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

My opponent says that, since same-sex marriage is intrinsically sterile, it cannot be legal. However, I disagree. I argue that marriages don't have to be unsterile in order for them to be valid. Many people marry just to express their love rather than to have children. Who are we to judge these marriages merely because they are not meant to result in biological children? All in all, I argue that sterile marriages are just as valid as unsterile marriages.
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

I am quoting from a website I found, "Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage." (Website: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...) I think this is quite a valid reason. Yes we have already talked about this but the way this is worded truly speaks facts into possible for a gay couple tothis debate. The quote in lament terms means that it is not have a child without a third party. Meaning that it should not be recognized as a "marriage."
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

My opponent claims that, because there are more people who are against same-sex marriage than there are people who are for it, same-sex marriage is morally wrong. This is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy, the fallacy of claiming that something is true because the majority believes it to be true. Just because the majority thinks something does not mean that what the majority thinks is right. My opponent also says that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be bullied than children raised by opposite-sex couples are. This is true, and this is because of homophobia. Just because someone gets bullied because of something doesn't mean that the thing for which they are bullied is morally wrong. If someone gets bullied by a racist because they were adopted by and have been raised by black parents, does that mean that the child should no longer be raised by black parents? No.
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

You want me to prove that gay marriage is morally wrong? That is easy. Lets start with the majority of the population believes it is incorrect. What proof do I have of this? Well look at the countries in the world that does not allow gay marriage (which includes China). It is obvious that the majority of the world does believe nor allow gay marriage. A "moral" is unique to the individual. However, what is 'right or wrong' is generally decided upon by a society. Based on the fact that there are more people against gay marriage then there are for it makes the concept morally wrong. As for the point my opponent made (and I quote), "I have a point of my own to make that I have not yet brought up. Just to clarify, this is not a rebuttal of any claim that my opponent has made, but a rebuttal that many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal have made. Many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal claim that it is better for children to be raised by a mother and a father than by two mothers or by two fathers. However, a study, which you can read about at http://www.sciencedaily.com......, debunked this." I as you stated never said this was an issue and I do not believe it is one. Two men or two women raising a child does not negatively impact the child, although there are kids in schools that will "torment" or "bully" the child simply because his parents are gay. If you do not believe me make a single internet search about it. There are even TV episodes of SVU about this. I am not saying kids do not get bullied if their parents are straight, I am just saying that gay parents generally give a testosterone filled angry child the reason he needs to pick on the gay couples child at school.
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

My opponent says that "half the world has laws against homosexuality." This is true. However, who is to say that these laws are right? My opponent has previously stated in Round 1 that the rest of the world thinks of homosexuals as weak, just as my opponent thinks. My opponent has now stated that it was inaccurate to say that the rest of the world thinks of the same way, and I appreciate my opponent's honesty in admitting their mistake. But nevertheless, while it is true that many places in the world have laws against homosexuality and that many people see homosexuals as weak, I argue that this does not advance my opponent's viewpoint. My opponent needs to prove that these laws against homosexuality are morally correct in order to use them to support the argument against same-sex marriage. Otherwise, my opponent would just be using circular reasoning. My opponent also pointed out that I was wrong in using a child raised by 2 parents of the same sex as an analogy for a child without bias, as a child without bias would be sheltered and therefore not raised by 2 parents. My opponent is correct in pointing out my incorrectness, and I apologize for my mistake. So, consider a hypothetical sheltered kid who has not been raised by any parents. There is no evidence to suggest that this hypothetical child would consider a same-sex couple to be wrong. This claim that my opponent has made is completely unfounded, as there is no evidence to support it. My opponent says that "being homosexual is morally wrong." My opponent has no proof of this. If my opponent wants to say that being homosexual is morally wrong in order to support the case against same-sex marriage, then my opponent will have to prove that being homosexual is morally wrong, which my opponent has not yet done. And now, I have a point of my own to make that I have not yet brought up. Just to clarify, this is not a rebuttal of any claim that my opponent has made, but a rebuttal that many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal have made. Many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal claim that it is better for children to be raised by a mother and a father than by two mothers or by two fathers. However, a study, which you can read about at http://www.sciencedaily.com..., debunked this.
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

So my opponent says that (and I quote), "My opponent also claims that "the rest of the world" views homosexuals that way and now probably thinks of America that way, now that same-sex marriage is legal in America as of June 26, 2015. However, I assert that this is not true. Same-sex marriage is legal in numerous other countries. These countries include but are not limited to Canada, Spain, Sweden, and Argentina. Alright so the rest of the world I stated might have been inaccurate... But half the world has laws against homosexuality. Check this link out: http://www.bbc.com... Look at the map on that site. My opponent also stated, "For example, if you took a none biased kid that has no knowledge of this topic and let him watch a man kiss a woman and a man kiss a man and ask him which one seemed wrong I guarantee you he would say the gay couple," but I argue that this is false. Many kids are raised by 2 parents of the same sex, and none of them question it until they hear someone say that it's unnatural." That is a terrible come back. Did you read what I wrote?! I stated if you took a none biased kid that knows nothing about sex nor if a man should be with a man or a woman. Completely neutral human being. Lets say for example a sheltered one just for this experiment. That is what I meant by an unbiased kid. If you take a kid from a gay couple that raises the kid to know that being gay is alright, then of course he is going to not be disturbed by it! He grew up with them brain washing him. Exact same scenario if you were to take a kid from a family that brainwashed him into thinking the kkk is right. Point being is, being homosexual is morally wrong. To be completely honest I just try to help them and never spew hate from my mouth. But I do not agree with their beliefs at all. There is nothing that makes me more frustrated then a gay couple saying they are christian though, seriously a living oxymoron when I hear about a gay couple that claims to be a christian.
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

My opponent says that "It is in human nature to cringe when seeing two people of the same gender show public displays of affection towards each other. For example, if you took a none biased kid that has no knowledge of this topic and let him watch a man kiss a woman and a man kiss a man and ask him which one seemed wrong I guarantee you he would say the gay couple," but I argue that this is false. Many kids are raised by 2 parents of the same sex, and none of them question it until they hear someone say that it's unnatural. My opponent says that, since same-sex couples cannot have a biological child together as I have previously stated, they must adopt a child if they want to have a child, which is expensive in America. This is true, but I fail to see why this should be used as a reason to prohibit people of the same sex from marrying. Yes, it's more expensive, but if they want to do something that is more expensive, we should not prohibit them from doing so. If they want to do something, it should be their choice. Even if it is a burden on them because it's more expensive, that in no way adversely affects other people, so they should be allowed to do so. My opponent says, "Bouncing back to my opening statement, America probably looks weak to other countries now. Truly when I think of a gay guy, I think of fragile little man child that's experimenting with sex. Just so you sensitive people know that is exactly how the rest of the world views gays and now they probably think that about America," but I disagree. My opponent may think of a "fragile little man child that's experimenting with sex" when he thinks of a homosexual man, but my opponent has no proof of this. My opponent also claims that "the rest of the world" views homosexuals that way and now probably thinks of America that way, now that same-sex marriage is legal in America as of June 26, 2015. However, I assert that this is not true. Same-sex marriage is legal in numerous other countries. These countries include but are not limited to Canada, Spain, Sweden, and Argentina. My opponent in his final words of this round says, "If some faggot is fingering a guys butt, tell them the truth (truth being is that it is disgusting and unnatural)," but again, I argue that this is false. Homosexuality is not unnatural, but rather natural. Homosexuality is found in hundreds of species, but homophobia is found in only one. The people in that species are Homo sapiens, AKA humans. Which seems unnatural now? (Don't give me credit on that, I paraphrased that from a famous quote.)
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

I think that America should have not taken this step towards gay marriage at all. I strongly believe that no man should be with another man. It is just morally wrong. It is in human nature to cringe when seeing two people of the same gender show public displays of affection towards each other. For example, if you took a none biased kid that has no knowledge of this topic and let him watch a man kiss a woman and a man kiss a man and ask him which one seemed wrong I guarantee you he would say the gay couple. There are just too many problems with homosexuality. As you stated in your argument, if a gay couple wants to have a child they cannot have one them selves. If you know anything about getting a child in America without conceiving it yourself then you would know it is expensive. So technically speaking it is more expensive to have a child if you are gay. Bouncing back to my opening statement, America probably looks weak to other countries now. Truly when I think of a gay guy, I think of fragile little man child that's experimenting with sex. Just so you sensitive people know that is exactly how the rest of the world views gays and now they probably think that about America. Final Words: America stop being so damn sensitive and trying to be politically correct, start saying the truth. If someone is way over weight tell them and try to help them get healthy. Don't be polite! If some faggot is fingering a guys butt, tell them the truth (truth being is that it is disgusting and unnatural).
People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

In this debate, I am going to argue in favour of same-sex marriage being legal. I disagree with all of the commonly-used arguments against same-sex marriage being legal. Some people claim that same-sex marriage cannot be legal, because the Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We cannot use the Bible to define what should be legal and what should not be legal, because religion should have no place in politics. By basing our law on the Bible, that would be oppressing people who do not believe what the Bible says, and people who do believe what the Bible says but do not interpret it as defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Some people claim that same-sex marriage cannot be legal, because people of the same sex cannot have biological children together. It is true that many people get married so that they can have biological children, but that should not mean that any marriage where the people involved cannot have biological children is immoral. If 1 or more people involved in a marriage are sterile, should their marriage be considered invalid just because they cannot have biological children together? No. I welcome anyone to accept this challenge and debate me.
Star gate better then star wars

Nope because the v sniper gun created by the Gawool has meany purposes for instance one shot will parilize the saber two shots it dies and three shots disinagrates anything.Say Darth Vader attempts to take over earth S.G. 1 would take him and his army out i a heartbeat 3 shots a Vader is just dust.And Vaders stormtroopers are not siths so shoot them down with r.p.gs and rocket launchers no more Vader.
the Bible the Myth

The bible the myth, all great civilizations tried to explain the natural occurrences that happened in there daily lives, most failed. Some had great ideas and theories, but all explained things that could only be understood as supernatural. The bible is an account of such occurrence. a book to educate the illiterate masses and give them a moral path to follow. As time passed we grew and obtained a vast amount of knowledge the writers of the bible couldn't even grasp. From the outside looking into the bible it reflects the myths of the ancients and feels in the gaps with knowledge of their time. It has no relevance with today's culture or technology. We need only to look upon it as a attempt in history, society, but nothing more. It is the moral code of conduct of the time and just for bronze age Palestine. It has no place in the moral realm of today, nor is it justifiable. We as a species need to understand what the bible has to say, understand that it had a time and to place but we have surpassed the knowledge bronze age man, it is no longer needed to be that moral guide. We no longer need to search its text for meaning. The truth is there its a myth nothing more.
the Bible the Myth

Thank you for accepting. I have to admit that this is my first debate and have very poor essay skills. i May not have been clear with my first statement so ill explain. The bible was originally an oral tradition. The people of the time didn't know how to read or write. so the bible was compiled over time only by mouth than put to paper once the written language came about. It was a moral guide for the illiterate masses of the time. the people would gather and listen to the preachers preach. It taught them what was right and wrong. Again most couldn't read and there knowledge minimum. It was a moral path for them,then. Thanks for the ref. They only show that maybe somewhere in that book there might of got somethings right.Should we base our morals on this and our country our species survival. On a book for that last 2000 years can be dwindled down to a few scriptures that may be true. Most fairy tales have truth in them. Even if i believe that jesus was a real person and he was documented at the time dose not prove that he is the son of god or that his teachings are moral. I cant site wiki as truth. Again "It is the moral code of conduct of the time" the ten commandments would need a great over haul to meet today's standards. Here i can only let Christopher Hitchens explain. http://youtu.be... Sorry but my opponent did not prove the bible is not myth only that it may contain some truth only if you look really hard. But all myths have some truth they all have a base from witch it gets its form. My opponent speaks as if this book is one book of truth. it is a combination of many books that mostly contradict themselves. Written all at different times and then combined , by popular vote, make the bible. These are oral traditions pass down over hundreds of years and revised once written to fit the masses. I am surprised to find any truth at all. Sorry for the lack of quotes or ref. i dont use much as i tend to take from the books ive read on this subject, bible,torah,quran, book of mormon,mahabharata,book of enoch,these are my ref. unless i quote or put in videos.