BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conducting Background Checks with Gun Sales is Reasonable

My opponent's argument is essentially as follows:a. Guns are an issueb. Background checks reduce the amount of firearms in criminals hands c. Background checks are reasonable as they reduce crimeA. Guns are an issueGuns are used in defense far more often then in offence [1. Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns]. In fact, gun control would have little effect on homicide or suicide rates as people merely substitute for other forms of weaponry, and guns may even have a decreasing crime impact [2. Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime]. B. Reduces guns in criminal hands If anything, it decreases the amount of guns in law abiding hands who would deter criminals. It reduces the amount of gun shows and gun ownership. This has been linked to increases robbery, murder, rape, and robbery [3. Lott, John R. Bias Against Guns]. Most guns stopped are fals positives, meaning background checks only affect law abiding citizens, NOT criminals [4.http:// bit.ly/1mBV4hh] C. CrimeSee Massechusets... and above
Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places

In order to ban cigarettes completely my opponent needs to explain why we should get rid of all types of cigarettes. Since I've proven at least one type of cigarette that wont bother others or induce a lot of health concerns, Then we should not ban all cigarettes. My opponent has never tackled the fact that the government will raise taxes exponentially to make up for the lost revenue of 19 billion a year. Silence equals concurrence. With that being said my opponent hasn't rebutted any of my points. E- cigarettes don't cause cancer,lung disease nor does it produce an offensive smell that will bother others. Since I have proven a good form of cigarette so say, since I have proven the detriment of banning this I believe that con should win.
Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places

your only focusing on the electric cigarette now i for one have never heard of this type of cigarette lets focus on the big picture on the non healthy ones. The non healthy ones. "Cigarette smoking kills over 400,000 people a year Smoking is one of the largest problems in the United States. There are constant lawsuits over the effects smoking has on people. Smoking is the largest leading cause of death in the US; In college dorms we are all living in a small space where different people have different preferences. This leads to the question of just how much effect does smoking cigarettes have on general health" go to http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu...
Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places

If something is banned then obviously it will cause a effect on things. If we ban smoking completely, then we will loose 19 billion dollars a year.....http://www.nytimes.com...If we ban smoking completely then our government might not be able to fund welfare, and or some other operations of state. Also if we ban this then the government might exponentially raise taxes to make up for this lost revenue.part 2....My opponent agrees with this point and doesn't refute it. e- cigarettes don't produce the smell, or smoke as regular cigarettes. So there is no second hand smoke so say to worry about. Also e- cigarettes don't pose as many health risks.Unless he can defeat all my points then con should win.
Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places

isn't this debate about smoking in public places?!!! I mean your second argument is on topic but your first isn't!!. I'm talking about banning smoking in public places. How would you like to be a victim of second hand smoke voters? second hand smoke is like being trapped in a smokers lover paradise with all the fumes drifting around you trying to get into your lungs waiting to choke you and get you addicted. plus when you try to quit it can be a living hell.
Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places

cigarette industries pay taxes . Thus they have influence on politics. - find out how many members of your parliaments smoke. You won't get it illegal, as long as people vote for smokers. - there's taxes on cigarettes. So the if the government made smoking illegal, then people would smuggle cigarettes and still smoke. But the state would not get the money.Electronic cigarettes The electronic cigarette allows you to “smoke” to your heart’s content: without inhaling benzene; formaldehyde; cyanide; or any of the 4,000 other constituents of tobacco smoke likely to do you harm. E-cigarettes smoke is not the same as regular smoke....its scentless and doesnt have many health risks. .........http://goeshealth.com...
Global warming is a fraud

My opponent again has failed to prove his point, he claims that CO2 causes global warming, then shows that CO2 emmissions are increasing and so is the global temparture. He is still yet to prove that these CO2 emmissions are the cause of this temparture increases. Either way we know the world is heating up, the question is why, here is a graph crossing over sun actrivity with the gobal temparture: As you can see these two lines are virtualuy idenyticle, thus solar activity causes global warming, not CO2 emmissions.
Global warming is a fraud

Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e.g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. The emissions of CO2 have been dramatically increased within the last 50 years and are still increasing by almost 3% each year, see graph below: Word-wide CO2 emission are steadily increasingGraph 1: CO2-emissions world-wide by year (data from wri.org) World-wide CO2 emissions and concentrationsGraph 2: CO2 emissions world-wide by year and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by year The carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere where it remains for 100 to 200 years. This leads to an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (see above on the right hand side), which in turn causes the average temperature on Earth to raise (see graph below). Increase of world temperature Chart 3: Increase of global average temperature for the last 20 years (source: wri.org) Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere.
Global warming is a fraud

Your first source: loaded a 404 page. Your second source: the evidence presented here is dubious at best: "No. Some leading scientists vocally disagree with the study, which also runs contrary to the prevailing view of experts that Antarctica has been losing ice mass over the past few decades. "I think there's a serious issue with the study," says Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado. "It"s unfortunate that it made it through peer review."" Your third source: Forbes? Seriously? That's an economics site, not a science site.
Global warming is a fraud

Global warming is a consequence of the activities of the bourgeoisie! If only the workers would seize the means of production, they would change it so that it did not produce greenhouse gasses.As for it being a fraud, that is just patently ridiculous. No rational person could see the evidence and still deny it, unless the oppressive capitalists were warping that person's views to further their own agenda of ruthless self-interest.OPEN YOUR EYES and LOOK at the evidence:http://climate.nasa.gov...http://www.icr.org...http://www.skepticalscience.com...http://usliberals.about.com...http://www.ucsusa.org...I look forward to tearing apart your counter-argument.Proletarian comrades, Unite!Hail the revolution! s://tse1.mm.bing.net...; alt="" />
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

"do you have total control of where the ball goes everytime?" No, and your statement is irrelevant. You stated "any non intended cause is chaos". I proved your statement wrong with my example. Sure, some unintentional actions will result in 'chaos' (losing a point in a match would probably not be considered 'chaotic' though), but not all. Thus, your proposition is false. "either your grabbed the right book or not" I grabbed the right book, but the action was unintentional.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

First, definitions. "noun 1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order. 2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases." http://dictionary.reference.com... "any non intended cause is chaos" Thus, any non intended cause must result in a state confusion, disorder, etc. Any example otherwise disproves this statement. Here's some hypothetical examples where an 'non intended action' do not result in chaos. I'm playing tennis, and I'm in the middle of a point. As the ball approaches, I go to hit a hard cross court forehand. However, the ball clips the net, but bounces into the opposite court, and I win the point. Hitting the top net and hoping the ball would go over was not my intention, hitting the ball into the far corner was. However, I unintentionally clipped the net, but still won the point. Did 'chaos' happen because of my unintentional action? No, and thus the above statement is wrong. I'm running late for the bus, and I unintentionally grab the wrong book. Turns out, I actually grabbed the book I was suppose to have. Though unintentional, my actions actually helped me. They did not cause any chaos whatsoever.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

"you are jumping to conclusions based on false assertions" That statement is the only false assertion. The definition of chaos is: 1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order. 2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases. Does a tennis ball accidentally clipping the net ( but still getting me the point) result in any of the above? No. I know this becuase I've done it before, which is why I used the example. We've all done unintentional actions, and I'm sure many have never resulted in chaos. My three hypothetical examples, as well as common sense, are proof enough that not all unintentional actions result in chaos. Case closed, voters please vote.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

"you have proved nothing.. tell me an example where you are correct, so far you are wrong" I have proved my case with an example (2 actually). In both examples, two unintentional actions did not result in chaos. How many examples do you want? I unintentionally miss my flight, but it turns out the plane crashed. Though a plane crash is chaotic, my unintentional action did create chaos for myself. "your second thingi is false from the get go, look at it again, nothing actually happens, its an error on your part" It's not. I think need A, but I grab B (Unintentional action). I later find out B was what I needed all along (consequence of action, not resulting in chaos). If you believe my logic is flawed, you have to do a better job to prove it.
Clan name.

"You say people wouldn't know what it means, which is entirely true. But I don't understand on how that is a bad thing? We can very easily tell and explain to people what it means. Once they hear it, they might think it's humorous (most will at least find it interesting) and will be interested in our clan. That can lead us to draw more people to our forum, thus gaining more members and friends, as well as increasing the population and strength of the members in our clan." This could happen, but this can also hurt the clan. What if some people hear it and spread the word that it is a stupid clan.
Clan name.

You say people wouldn't know what it means, which is entirely true. But I don't understand on how that is a bad thing? We can very easily tell and explain to people what it means. Once they hear it, they might think it's humorous (most will at least find it interesting) and will be interested in our clan. That can lead us to draw more people to our forum, thus gaining more members and friends, as well as increasing the population and strength of the members in our clan. You say that people would think it is weird, which might be true. But they would remember it, which means they would tell other people that might think it's interesting, and become interested in our forum/clan/what we have to offer. GO.
Clan name.

Thank you mason for allowing me to debate with you. A. Unknown I don't we should use this name because most people wouldn't know what kirisute means. If we joined a game and noticed we were in a clan, they would normally ask "Whats you clan name?". We would say "Kirisute". They would say "Huh?". So they would think our clan was stupid. B. The meaning. Also many people wouldn't want to join due to the meaning "Sorry for cutting off your head". That would not be pleasant for some people, and they would think we are weird.
Clan name.

Kevin (Jok3r) and I will soon be creating a forum to various video/photagraphy editing subjects as well as videogame and technology related topics. Once it builds the main recognized members in the forum will get a chance to join the forum "clan", basically a group of people playing videogames online with each other, but having some consistent item in each of the members name. I belive the clan should be called the "Kirisute" clan, meaning "Sorry for cutting your head off", which I thought was a witty, humorous, clever, and awesome name for a group of friends from a forum. I am going to see what my opponent and friend Kevin (Jok3r) thinks. let the dying BEGIN.
Is there something wrong with homosexuality

Ok, First of all, Are you saying that homosexuals shouldn't be offended when someone tells them that what they believe in or that their personality type is unacceptable? Let me give you an example, I hope you at least accept equality in all races, So, Let's take the case of blacks, Would you go up to someone and tell them that they shouldn't be black and being black is not natural or being black is bad? No, Right? Because it is something they can't change. They can't help it if they became black by birth. Not that being black is wrong. Just like that, Being gay is not a choice, Even if it was a choice, Which it isn't, There's nothing wrong with it, Can you choose whom you are going to love? You don't just wake up and be like, "Today, I'm going to love this girl", It just comes to you. So, Please stop listening to the Bible if it tells you to discriminate against other human beings, If it tells you to be inhumane and if it tells you to stop treating others with dignity and respect.
That Homework is a waste of Time.

Here is another study for you "Recent studies in Australia have shown homework to be an unnecessary waste of time." This study has shown that there is no benefit at all for kids up to 3rd grade, and very little benefit for kids in grades 4-6, minimal benefits for students in grades 7-9, and some benefit to 10th-12th graders. Could you honestly say that homework is worth the strife that it puts families through for these little results. Particularly towards the start of high school kids have enough chores to do at home as it is, and then adding homework on top of all that can easily cause unnecessary stress. School to kids is the equivalent to a stressful job that many parents have. You wrote that if you only did work in class you wouldn't pass the subject, while that may be true, I said previously that some studying should be done at home as revision for tests. I'm not saying no work should be done at home, I'm saying that teachers should not give homework to students while they already revise, which causes the unnecessary stress I was talking about.
That Homework is a waste of Time.

Having set homework allows for your brain to have a necessary time it needs to memorize it, or 'set it in stone' for want of a better word. The study previously mentioned does not state that children get 'smarter' if they receive homework, but they do reinforce the idea in their mind. During time that will be spent in University, or collage in the states, we will have to study for whichever subject we eventually choose. If we only did work while in class, we would not pass our subject, forget getting a PhD. Homework is simply put 'work for home' and it is, but shouldn't be seen as anything more than revision for what has happened that day. Homework is designed to help the human mind remember more, using a technique called ELC; experiential learning cycle. This shows that we learn things through experiences, or from repeating things we may already know. This is why 'Practice makes Perfect'.
That Homework is a waste of Time.

"School kids jump for joy, and parents get ready to breathe a sigh of relief. A US study has found 'no relationship' between more homework and better grades." Here is a quote from the Australian Woman's Weekly, it speaks for itself. Now, you're saying that it will help students get use to the idea of having work to do, that happens at school already whilst you're learning. You also pointed out that homework reinforces what you've learnt that day at school, no school will only teach a subject for one day, you go over what you've learnt from the previous class and then advance in that area. There is no amount of homework that will make anyone smart. At a young age (Primary School) it's unnecessary for kids to be given homework, it will simply give them a negative attitude towards it in the future. Once you get to high school you should do revision for tests, or perhaps class work that you didn't finish. But other than that, having set homework that a teacher has given you is unnecessary.
That Homework is a waste of Time.

Homework helps to reinforce the ideas learnt at school, as well as to help students get used to the idea of always having work to do, such as adults do in the 'Real world'. It can be said that homework is a 'waste of Time' because it is seen as 'more work at the end of the day' or 'that the work should be done at school, if it needs to be done at all.' The purpose of homework is not to give the child 'more work', but to reinforce all the ideas taught to the student that day. Studies done in 2006 report that doing homework resulted in a 26% increase in grades. This SHOWS the productive and positive affects of doing homework.
Cereal Should be Poured into the Bowl Before the Milk

Well, um, I didn't challenge you specifically, so... I don't really see the need to point out that you accept. Given that I already put forth an argument and spared you the pointless social niceties, I would think it was common sense to, you know, do the same. Apparently not. Unless you're just trying to use up your first part of the argument, forcing me to use my next one, so that you'd have the final word and be the end all be all of the debate and leave me without the option of rebuttal and only one body of argument. If that's the case, you could have at least been more clever about it. I am rather new here, though, so if it's customary to needlessly accept nonexistent targeted challenges, I withdraw the above confused semi-rant.
Being a Christian does not negate being in support of the Death Penalty.

Okay, so you've established the reasoning for human government, and that is all well and fine, but it does not answer my question. "Why does God ordain human government? He does it to restrain evil. You don't legislate morality, you legislate against immorality. The government cannot make someone be nice to me, but they can do something to keep them from murdering or convicting other crimes." That is the comment where it went from you using scripture, to you putting your own opinion in. Granted, you may have reasoning for saying that, nothing that precedes or follows that comment actually supports that. I say the OT is not a convincing argument, because you are just picking and choosing. And I do not say just you, we all do that when trying to prove a point. While I understand your statement from Exodus, I really believe you need to establish how you can pick and choose from the OT. How can you use a line from Exodus and say "that is how God ordains it" but ignore others from the OT. Does God not ordain those? I believe it is weak to use Jesus' Crucifixion as an argument. That was 2000 years ago, from a different people, in a different time. While the Bible offers perspective, Jesus' Crucifixion was different. You can't claim that if we didn't have the death penalty Jesus' wouldn't have been able to find a way to die for our sins. I believe God is powerful enough to find a way.
Being a Christian does not negate being in support of the Death Penalty.

For you to say that anything in the Old Testament has no validity in the discussion of the Death Penalty is completely wrong. I'm going to use a lot of scriptures so try and keep up and delve into them for your own sake. Romans 13:1-7 discusses our "Christian" citizenship. "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God." -Romans 13:1 So what is the reason for human government? 1) They are ordained of God (Romans 13:4) 2) God sets up Kings & brings Kings down (Daniel 2:21 & Daniel 2:37) 3) So that God's power may be displayed (Romans 9:17) When Jesus is standing before Pilate, He reminds Pilate how he was given his power in John 19:11. God ordains Human Government (Romans 13:3-4) Why does God ordain human government? He does it to restrain evil. You don't legislate morality, you legislate against immorality. The government cannot make someone be nice to me, but they can do something to keep them from murdering or convicting other crimes. Well, how do you explain Exodus 20:13 when it says "Thou shall not kill." This literally means in the Greek text "Thou shall not take personal vengeance." I explain it by turning to Exodus 21:12 where it says "Anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death." Genesis 9:6 states it in this manner, "Yes, you must execute anyone who murders another person, for to kill a person is to kill a living being made in God's image." All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. God has his "ordained ministers" (government officials) to carry out the punishment of crimes. God is too good not to punish sin. Lastly, I ask you this: Who crucified Jesus? God the Father poured out His wrath against his Son so that we might be saved. He had to take on our sins and die the most painful death that has ever been experienced. I don't how much more convincing the Bible can be. God does not contradict Himself because if He did then He would not be God.