BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americas second amendment

The problem with your argument is that it's based on 18th century logic. Your entire point seems to be drawing a parallel from the American Revolution to now. During the American Revolution, the government and the "rebels" were relatively equally armed. It was muskets and cannons against muskets and cannons. It was reasonable for a sufficient number of rebels to stand a chance against the government. You can make a case that the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment for the reason of overthrowing a tyrannical government for the simple fact that they couldn't envision Predator drones. Your entire argument is also predicated on organizing as you put it "hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of civilians with assault rifles. Problem: there's no way you can keep that kind of operation under cover. No matter how you coordinate it, the NSA, CIA, FBI etc. will have you under surveillance long before you make any traction. https://www.eff.org... http://www.washingtonsblog.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... I could go on for a long time citing stories of the government spying on us. Bottom line, long before you got a significant number of "soldiers" together the military capabilities I mentioned in Round 1 would brought to bear against you. Your conclusion states that "if it becomes tyrannical and we try to launch a coup or rebellion we would fail going up against the most advanced military in the world with hunting rifles and such." This is the basic point of your argument, and in order to make it you need to show convincing evidence that the difference between a "hunting rifle" and an "assault rifle" would make a significant difference in going up against "the most technologically advanced military in the world" (using all your terms). You have cited no evidence, statistics, studies, articles, anything to support this thesis. We could substitute "foreign invader" for "tyrannical government" and the arguments would remain the same. Probably not germane to the debate, but the reason I despise this argument is it's a red herring. If you REALLY want to do something about the tyrannical central government, spend less time worrying about your AR-15 and more time supporting politicians who will defend the Constitution against the excesses of the current trajectory of the executive branch.
Americas second amendment

First of all I appreciate your support for the second and all the amendments. First in my scenario, it would not be just one person against a swat team or the police I am talking about a second revolutionary war in witch hundreds of thousands (probably maybe even millions) of patriotic Americans come together in one whole organized military force (well, as organized as you can get at such a moments notice) to fight off our own tyrannical government. much like when our forefathers rebelled against the British in the 17-hundreds. And it is my opinion that in order to even stand a chance against our tyrannical government we would/will need "assault rifles" and incorrectly called "machine guns." I am not talking about just one person with an assault rifle, I am talking about hundreds of thousands of people fighting together. Think about it in the 17-hundreds when the Americans rebelled against the British, they were not one man and a rifle causing a "stand off" in a house. No, they all came together in large armies, militias, and battalions of many many men. Here let me even quote JFK: "In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the THOUSANDS of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men " citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment"s notice. Today we need a NATION of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort. By calling attention to "a well regulated militia," the "security" of the nation, and the right of each citizen "to keep and bear arms," our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country in the case of a tyrannical government or a foreign threat. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." Also, some argue that we should only ban assault weapons and we can keep our hunting rifles and such but in the case of a tyrannical government we would lose. The United States military is the most technologically advanced military in the world( as you pretty much explained above) and if it becomes tyrannical and we try to launch a coup or rebellion we would fail going up against the most advanced military in the world with hunting rifles and such. Also in the case of foreign invaders we would also stand no chance. And that is why the second amendment still applies today. That, is why we need our assault rifles and our (incorrectly called) "machine guns". We need them to defend against a tyrannical government and foreign invaders. And that is the only way we would even REMOTELY stand a chance.
Americas second amendment

Just to be clear, I am not "con" to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, I fully support it, along with the 25 others (excluding the 18th since it was revoked by the 21st). However, I will gladly debate your premise that the reason for the Second Amendment is to defend against a tyrannical government or foreign invader. I hear this argument frequently from gun-rights advocates. The reason I oppose it is because above all political ideology, I am a realist. First of all, let's get some basic necessities out of the way. The fact that in your hypothetical you are in armed conflict with the government means that you can't use any argument about hiding from them (not that a gun would help you hide anyway). The scenario only occurs if you are in direct conflict with the government and that conflict has escalated to shots fired. Let's explore the possibilities of how this might play out. Perhaps you'll get lucky and it will "only" be a SWAT team coming for you. You are now in an armed conflict with a team of heavily armed and armored officers specifically trained for this type of situation: http://www.tactical-life.com... https://www.ncjrs.gov... I could post dozens (perhaps hundreds) more articles here, but the point is simple: AR-15 or no AR-15, you're going to lose. That's assuming you only have to deal with the police. Perhaps the government taps the military and they send in an Army Ranger unit: https://www.army.mil... Now you're up against elite infantry specifically trained in defeating enemy combatants in small groups. Game over. Perhaps the government decides that even though they know they can defeat you with small arms you're not worth risking the soldiers over, regardless of how long the odds are, so they simply send in a Predator drone: http://www.af.mil... The drone can hit your home with a laser-guided missile and you're dead before you even know what's happening. Or, perhaps the government decides to play it safe even above that level and instead sends a Tomahawk cruise missile: http://www.raytheon.com... Now you're dead and the enemy is still over 1,000 miles away. You better have one heck of a modification to that assault rifle if you're going to defend against that. As I said previously, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. We use guns for hunting, for sporting, and most importantly for defending ourselves against criminal threats (your AR-15 against a burglar or rapist in the night is going to make the odds look very different than the same gun against a SWAT team). The bottom line is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be a supporter of the right to bear arms. "Because it'll protect me against a cruise missile" isn't one of them. As to the foreign invader threat you cited, if the hypothetical foreign invader is strong enough that our country has been defeated militarily, that enemy is therefore stronger militarily than the government capabilities outlined above.
Video games are a sport

Your definition of "sport" states that sports require physical effort. You yourself said in your argument that "Sports does [sic] not need to be a main physical activity", which directly contradicts the definition you provided. If we take your definition as the one used in this debate, which I'm happy to do, it disallows video games as a sport. Video games do not require any more physical effort than walking up the stairs, making a cup of tea, or using the toilet. Therefore, unless you wish to count any of the above three as sports, you cannot count video games as a sport. (Despite being an avid chess player, I don't believe that chess is a sport. I've played soccer for over half my life and think it's stupid to compare chess to soccer).
Video games are a sport

What is a sport? "a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org...). Video games require skill and reflexes, has rules and can be for pure enjoy or a full time job. Sports does not need to be a main physical activity, chess is a sport and you have just move a wooden piece (or any other material), but requires skill and strategy, with rules and is competitive.
DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: A Liberal Social Democracy is Preferable to Anarchy

I have come to the realization that even if I win this debate, I would not have time to finish the tournament. This is unfortunate, as this debate seemed amazingly fun. Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time to be able to participate. I am comforted by the fact that my place in the tournament will be replaced by someone so skillful. Good luck fuzzycatpotato! We should repeat this debate sometime. I've got ideas X)
DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: A Liberal Social Democracy is Preferable to Anarchy

As Con stated, we PM'd and agreed to skip this pair of rounds.As such, I won't make any new arguments, rebut any points, or bring up new evidence.However, as it's the last round for me, I wanted to give a short summary.---Summary:I've proven that Utilitarianism is the preferred value in this debate, because it maximizes potential value, which Con has not significantly rebutted.I've proven that LSD best leads to economic growth and to assisting equality and thus positively impacts Utilitarianism.I've proven that anarchy leads to crime and large-scale societal collapse and thus negatively impacts Utilitarianism.I've proven that anarchy inevitable collapses into an unpredictable form of government, which makes any Con impacts short-term and potentially negative, as a terrible government may arise and do the opposite of Veganarchy, while LSDs are long-lived.I've proven that deep ecology is flawed, and that humans are more valuable than animals.I've proven that otherization is somewhat inherent and that veganarchy promotes otherization more than LSDs do.I've proven that LSDs reduce war, and that anarchies reduce war only from lack of a healthy, large enough populace to fight them.These are big impacts for LSD and against veganarchy in terms of Utilitarianism.Vote Pro.--- Again, thanks to all readers, to our judges, and to my opponent. ---Good luck to Con! :D
DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: A Liberal Social Democracy is Preferable to Anarchy

Resolved: A Liberal Social Democracy is Preferable to AnarchyDebate Details:Round One of the DDO Tournament Take Two, Middle Tier. (http://www.debate.org...)Tournament Judges:Mikal: (http://www.debate.org...)YYW: (http://www.debate.org...)orangemayhem: (http://www.debate.org...)bladerunner060: (http://www.debate.org...)Blade-of-Truth: (http://www.debate.org...)Debate Competititors:FuzzyCatPotato is Affirming the resolution. (http://www.debate.org...)kbub is Negating the resolution. (http://www.debate.org...)Debate Rules:Character limit: 10,000/roundPosting time: 48 hr/roundBurden of Proof: SharedDebate Schedule:Rd. 1: Acceptance.Rd. 2: New arguments and rebuttals.Rd. 3: New arguments and rebuttals.Rd. 4: Rebuttals and summary.Debate Definitions:Liberal Democracy: Democracy with an emphasis on a high level of rights of citizensSocial Democracy: Democracy with an emphasis on a high level of financial support of disadvantaged citizens that also retains capitalism and corporationsPreferred: BetterAnarchy: A lack of governmentGovernment: An entity with a monopoly on legitimate violenceNote A: The definitions were (mostly) agreed on before the round started.Note B: "Preferred" is left vague so that "we can define in round what we think is important".Note C: My opponent will "choose one or more subclasses of anarchy as the debate goes".Thanks to all readers, to our judges, and to my opponent.
Texting while driving have the same, if not more extreme penalties as drunk driving

'Drunk driving reduces your reaction time and alertness, while texting and driving puts both of those at their worst because you are completely taking your eyes off the road". 1. Drunk driving also impairs your judgement. This will be shown how dangerous this is. 2. Drunk driving likely has the same reaction time and alertness off texting., because it impairs your judgement. For example, you might see a car break, but decide to step on the gas anyways. '23% of auto accidents involved a cell phone, and 52% of FATAL crashes in 2011 involved a cell phone. Texting and driving is more dangerous than drunk driving and should be treated as such'. 1. We are discussing the effects of DUI and texting while driving, not the results. The reason why there are more deaths by texting than by intoxication is because less people are drinking and driving. The proper way to compare them is to have two equal groups, one drunk and the other one texting.have both drive a car and then we'll see which is worse. Now for something of my own. About the impaired judgement: You will not be able to think straight . Driving for you might turn into a 'see how many people I can run over' game. You won't stop even if you hit something. NOTICE: This argument is based off when someone is heavily drunk, not 'just a little over the limit'.
Texting while driving have the same, if not more extreme penalties as drunk driving

Texting while driving is downright the most despicable and selfish thing you can do on the road. Drunk driving reduces your reaction time and alertness, while texting and driving puts both of those at their worst because you are completely taking your eyes off the road. A person who texts and drives generally take their eyes off the road for 3-5 seconds at a time. In 3 seconds, you can swerve on to the wrong side of the road, rear end someone if they brake (surprise, you are supposed to use the two seconds rule anyway), or crash head on after swerving. Think of it this way, in those 3 seconds, you can end your only life on earth by swerving and crashing head on to someone (not to mention end the other person's life because you are a selfish disgrace to humanity). 23% of auto accidents involved a cell phone, and 52% of FATAL crashes in 2011 involved a cell phone. Texting and driving is more dangerous than drunk driving and should be treated as such. Right now, a DUI includes a fine, jail time, and license suspension. Texting and driving only includes a small fine, when it is clearly more dangerous.
Athletic competition on the Highschool level

My opponent had bad conduct for instigating the debate and forfeiting the final round. In conclusion. Highschools on the private level will be effected by the tough economy as well due to the fact that they have to cut tuition rates which I have a source for. This is the equivalent of a public school suffering a budget cut therefore my opponent has no basis to say that public and private schools cannot compete on the basis of funding when both will be equally affected and seeing as he posted no counterargument he agrees. My opponent claimed that private highschools provide scholarships to athletically gifted students and posted no source to back this claim up and since he was the instigator it was his responsibility to do so. Therefore the argument that private highschools have an unfair edge on public schools because they provide scholarships to athletically gifted students holds no water.
Athletic competition on the Highschool level

Most if not all private schools on the high school level don't offer scholarships to students who posses great athletic ability. Colleges do, but then this debate would be about "Athletic competition on the High school level. High schools whether public or private largely have the purpose to education and train students and give them the ability to get a job or go off to college to increase their likelihood of getting a better job. While sports certainly are important, high schools focus more intently on their academic abilities and will cut any player from athletics who don't perform well academically. My opponent points out that due to the negative condition of the economy, many public schools will be forced to cut athletics, this is very true. What my opponent fails to realize is that businesses are also being hurt by the economy as well, and schools that educate students who pay for their education are a business, private schools are a business. Due to the difficult economic atmosphere many private schools are forced to lower their tuition rates. [1] Tuition is the main form of income a private school receives, and when private schools have to cut their tuition rates, they being to lose their spending ability just like public schools do when they undergo budget cuts. Therefore Private schools are also forced to do without programs as well due to their loses in income. In conclusion 1. My opponent has posted no sources supporting the notion that private schools on the high school level do in fact offer scholarships to athletically gifted students to play at their school and since he has the burden of proof he accepts as being the instigator, this is his part to fulfill. 2. My opponent claims that since public schools have to cut funding extracurricular programs such as sports may suffer. I have made the claim that due to the failing economy, private schools have been forced to cut tuition rates, their funding, meaning their extracurricular programs such as sports will suffer as well and I have posted a source to back this up. Vote Pro [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (Private schools are forced to cut tuition fees)
Athletic competition on the Highschool level

I think public schools should not have to compete against private schools in a state sponsored tournament. Private schools have an unfair advantage because they can recruit students who are more developed in athletic areas by offering them scholarships. Also athletes at public schools must live in a certain district so there is likely to be fewer athletes in a small district as posed to all North America. I see no advantages for the athletes' of public schools. In Addition to the other two points I have made as the economy continues to be horrible and spending on education continues to be cut public schools are directly affected. Facilities will not be updated as needed because there is no money to do this with. Private schools are not affected by the funding cuts
The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

Head in the Clouds What I notice about all the people with god arguments always turn evil what getting in the midst of an argument. I don’t evil as an opinion, but as actions. They become more insulting and deceptive, then focusing on validation. Its gives creepy feel how does that change come about? What is that? It is definitely not the GOOD. For the first section of round two of my opponent is only to slander and distort what my position is. There is no attempt to argue or debate what so ever. It’s sad because it’s boring for me and viewers to have to see a reiteration of what has been said to counter distortion. I will not rewrite but encourage people to take what I actually said and not what my opponent says I say. Sophist: language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top? Analytically Fooled These few premises should be self-evidently suspicious, because a condition must have and antecedent and a consequent. Remember here we have words. But my opponent is trying to prove a reality. But these antecedents refer to the reality negative absolutes. That is, no god, no immaterial, and no abstract. But negative absolutes are non-existent. So since he is referring to non-existences .These are not logical. For, it is clear when I replace them with zeros. Here are the obvious problems. If there is no God, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind. If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws. If there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is no objectively true refutation to this logical argument Same with zero’s 1. If there is 0, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind. 2. If there is 0 then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws. 3. If there are 0 then there is no objectively true refutation to this logical argument But nothing not-even claims follow from non-existence. Therefore they are not logical. QED!! See my opponent was intentionally insulting me by restating a basic conditional: If P, then Q. Q is definitely true if P. But the reality of his form is “( ->~Q)” it’s not even (~p->~q) which is what was intended in words, but not-god, and other absolute non-existences. Therefor they can’t be antecedents. And that is straight from the hill!! I hope my opponent has the integrity to recognize that he has just been outclassed by the Fool! Long live the Fool!