BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the USA should have universal background checks

I accept. I believe that Universal Background Checks aren't necessary in the United States. I think that the reason for most of the shootings in America is not that there is little gun control, but that the law enforcement to catch these criminals is seldom strict enough. "there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks." You're right that there is potential, but there is plenty of information to support that background checks would be ineffective. Yes, background checks would keep criminals from legally buying guns, but criminals will be able to get guns no matter what. They can go to friends and relatives, or buy assult rifles off the black market. So, background checks would be ineffective. http://m.mic.com... "not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun." Call me when you meet a convicted murderer who isn't a diehard. Even most gas station robbers own guns and are prepared to kill someone. "the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it." This is true, but the vast majority of people are more likely to use a gun for hunting. Their problems with their guns will most likely be something like gun cleaning problems. I wouldn't refer to a cold blooded murder as a "problem". "a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have." You said overall deaths, not shootings. Also, countries with very strict gun control also have very high murder rates. Such as Russia. http://www.gunpolicy.org... Also, even if there is to be background checks, it should be enforced at the local level of government. People in New York City don't use guns as much as someone in rural Wyoming. " isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?" Actually, no it isn't. Most people use guns for good purposes like hunting and the shooting range. I look forward to your arguments.
USA should KEEP troops in Syria

Con once again had two main arguments in their round 3. I will respond to them first. 1) The US needs to keep troops in Syria because we need to destroy terrorism. First off, I would like to clarify a factual inaccuracy in one of the points Pro made. Pro said "Trump pulled out troops because he THOUGHT that ISIS was dead". Trump has made it publicly clear that he is not pulling troops out of Syria completely after all (1). This is an untrue and un-sourced statement right in the middle of your argument. Second off, Regardless of how much death and destruction ISIS has caused, Pro has failed to provide proof that it is enough to warrant intervention. On top of this, The United States has openly seemed very confused towards what side of the conflict they are on. For example, Early 2018, The United States was aggressively launching air strikes against the Syrian government itself (2). ISIS is fighting against the Syrian government in Syria. This means that the US has launched air strikes against the Syrian government at the same time the US have ground troops fighting ISIS and other terrorist groups that are also fighting the Syrian government. If that is true, Then the US is effectively fighting both sides of a civil war. If there is reason for the US to believe that both sides of the war are at fault, That seems like a perfect justification to not get involved militarily at all. Like I said earlier, My argument is against troops in Syria, And I have no problem sending humanitarian aid like food and other life-saving items. 2) Even if Turkey does not take out the Kurds, There is still the Russians and Syrians. The Russians have no reason to want to oppress the Kurds. As for the Syrians, The United States could make an agreement to stop air-striking the Syrian government in exchange for the Assad regime to provide protection for the Kurds. As I mentioned earlier, The United States is effectively on two sides of a civil war here. The Syrian government probably does not want the United States air-striking their country, And the United States has immense leverage over them as well. If the United States really wanted the Kurds protected without using military force, That could be accomplished. Everything I needed to say regarding this is in my responses to the points Pro made. Thank you for the debate opportunity! Sources: (1) https://www. Nbcnews. Com/news/us-news/trump-says-he-agrees-100-percent-keeping-u-s-troops-n979466 (2) https://www. Theatlantic. Com/international/archive/2018/04/syria-is-not-a-humanitarian-war/557897/
USA should KEEP troops in Syria

Thank you for being very nice. 1) ISIS is not dead. UN Secretary General Ant"nio Guterres told the Security Council at the start of February 2018 that ISIS was reported to still control between 14, 000 and 18, 000 militants in Iraq and Syria, Including up to 3, 000 foreigners. This organization is not dead. 2) History repeats itself. Go back to 2011 and Obama pulls troops out of Iraq. Iraq does not have time to develop their army and ISIS makes sweeping gains and were back their again. Take a look at Syria. There are four factions-. Rebels, Government, Kurds, And ISIS. We currently support the kurds who cleared out key ISIS strongholds like Raqqa. If we pull out troops ISIS can come back, The Government who is backed by Russia can make sweeping gains and Russia will gain a key stronghold. Something we can't give up. Radical terrorist and rebels who are backed by Turkey have ALSO made big gains on the kurds. We ant let them go down to ISIS, Turkey and rebels and Russia and the government.
USA should KEEP troops in Syria

Thank you for the debate opportunity. I accept this debate. This is a very interesting topic, And I'm sure it will be a fun debate. I look forward to seeing how Pro can prove that the USA should keep troops in Syria. In Pro's round 1, They claimed "I believe that USA should not pull troops from Syria. It is a region of much importance and to give up hope there for the Kurds is absurd. " I am making the assumption that was not Pro's opening argument, And I'm also clarifying that this is not what Con has to negate. The debate topic is "USA should KEEP troops in Syria". My assumption is that the rules are the following:As pro, My opponent will be trying to prove that the statement "USA should KEEP troops in Syria" is true. As Con, I will be trying to prove that there is not enough evidence to claim that the statement "USA should KEEP troops in Syria" is true. It is Pro's job to start the debate as the affirmative, So I will be letting Pro give their opening argument in round 2. Because of this, Round 1 will merely be me accepting the debate, And I will not be giving my first argument until round 2. Good luck!
Is Human-Kind Trying To Play God

Hello fellow debator. My account name is "TheSymbiote" but u can call me "Sym"I accept this debate and I would like to show some definitions. n. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. n. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. n. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
trump is worse then hitler

Thanks for the response.My opponent has continued to make unsubstantiated assertions. He responds to claims I have sources to back up without providing his own. “but he was a communist thou” He was a ‘National Socialist” although even if he was a Communist that wouldn’t mean he didn’t hate other Communists, Communists always hate other factions of Communism. “milo is alt right commninsts ofc he likes trump, he likes trump therefor he likes hitler!!” Milo is alto right, but not a Communist. Although he is not a good guy he hasn’t gotten to Hitler levels. I did admit he is bad, but not everything that is bad is in the same league as Hitler. “hitler didnt even kill that many people, he killed to many people in a short amont of time, its not even possible! you dont make sense!” I provided the evidence, all I have gotten from my opponent is assertions without evidence.Considering I have provided evidence and my opponent has failed to do so. Vote for me for the win.Thank you.
trump is worse then hitler

Claims on HitlerHitler hated the Communists, despite the fact he had started out making a deal with Stalin (likely for the same reason he made a deal with the Japanese throughout the rest of the war, for military convenience). He blamed the burning of the Reichstag on the Communists. Hitler wanted to get rid of anyone that he perceived as threat to his power. The Communists fit this as they were the main opposite party to the National Socialists (Nazis). [1]My opponent claims Hitler did not hate Gypsies, this is simply not true. Gypsies (Roma) were sent to Auschwitz just like the Jews. [2][3]On top of that he killed other minority groups including, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals (as mentioned before) and black people. My opponent didn’t dispute homosexuals and in fact affirmed it so that alone refutes his original contention. [4] As a matter of fact, during the 1936 Olympics when Jesse Owens, an African American man won the gold medal in running, which enraged Hitler that a non-Aryan had beaten his “pure race”. (This was before he was at War with the United States) [5]Hitler tried to take over Europe. Trump doesn’t seem to have this in mind, although he has continued much of the bad foreign policies of his predecessors. So while the Jews were by far the most numerous victims of Hitler he still hated Communists as well. Claims on TrumpNow more to my Opponent’s point, he claims Trump hates all these people. Let’s start with Mexicans. How does Trump the gay people? He has stated he has no real problem with them. (It is yet to be seen if he will deliver , he has given some contradictory information on this matter but it is also yet to be seen him doing anything to oppose homosexuals anywhere near the level of Hitler). Trump may oppose gay marriage, again he seems to have gone back and forth on this, but is there any indication he plans to send them to camps? In fact one of the biggest Trump Supporters, Milo Yianopoulos, is gay himself (who as I was writing this debate ran into trouble). So While Trump has given bit of conflicting information on his views on homosexuality, Hitler was very clear. [6]In ConclusionI don’t particularly like Trump. He is quite a jerk in fact. But to compare him to Hitler is not warranted, at least not at this point in time. In order to support his assertion I pose to my opponent. Who has Trump indicated he will send to camps? Who has he hinted at mass exterminating? Trump hasn’t even gone as far as FDR did, who locked up American citizens in prison camps. Merely being rude and even bigoted against a certain group is not enough to push him past Hitler. In total Hitler killed an estimated 11 Million people, how many has Trump killed? (We can even include drone strikes and the like in that if you like, the number still won’t come close). I thank my opponent and look forward to his argument for the next round. Sources:[1] . http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...[2]http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...[3]http://history1900s.about.com...[4] . http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...[5] . https://www.ushmm.org...[6] . http://www.thewrap.com...
trump is worse then hitler

My opponent's argument is that Trump is worse than Hitler because Hitler hated only Jews. He did not set any parameters for this debate so all I have to do is refute this claim. First of all, Hitler didn't only hate Jews, he also hated Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals and really anyone who wasn't "Aryan". He had a whole hierarchy of the value of people. Hitler also sent these people to death camps. There is no indication yet that Trump plans to do this. As this is the first round I think that should be sufficient to get it rolling. I pass it back to my opponent.
Those Who Take Selfies (Just By Themselves) Are Ego-Maniacs

I would just like to admit that I am sexist because I believe men are expected to lead the way since it is in our genes to do so. Yes, there are women who had led humanity to great heights, but men still need standards that make them MEN. Watching musicals like Hairspray (West Side Story is more manly), wearing high-heels, playing patty-cake or acting extremely gay is not the standard that men should have. Anyway, back to the argument, selfies are plainly examples of ego-maniacs because they are trying to glorify themselves. No other form is more egotistical than selfies unless you would care to refute. As I said, conversing with your friends in person are better than texting, selfie-posting and calling. These are reasons for the need to go back to the past and forget about cell phones voluntarily because it ruins the spark in interactions.
Those Who Take Selfies (Just By Themselves) Are Ego-Maniacs

Ego-maniacs use selfies as a way to promote themselves in order to keep up their following or to attract a potential boyfriend/girlfriend. Selfies for guys are even worse because it is okay for girls to admire themselves since that's how they are, but for guys, it is just not right to do that. Guys should just stick to flexing and charm like the older generations. If they are that physically attractive, then they should just like the chicks come to them. They don't need the extra exposure and if they aren't supposedly physically attractive, then they are just desperate.
Those Who Take Selfies (Just By Themselves) Are Ego-Maniacs

Is there really a need to take selfies? Selfies are just not the kind of social activity that we should be using to communicate with each other. It seems like they love posting pictures of themselves for everyone to see. In response to my opponent's question, they may not seem self-conceited, but they are sub-consciously self-conceited. Like I said before, we should just talk to each other on the phone rather than text because it is more personal and unique than any text. Facebook may be an easier way to keep connected, but if we really wanted to keep our friends from our past to our adulthood, then we should take the extra mile to do so.
Those Who Take Selfies (Just By Themselves) Are Ego-Maniacs

Noun1.egomaniac - an abnormally egotistical person egoist, egotist, swellhead - a conceited and self-centered person http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Since I have established the meaning of what an ego-maniac is, I will say that selfies are the dirt of society. They are within the same category as reality tv shows and pornography (I'll admit that I do watch pornography). If people aren't ego-maniacs, then they wouldn't need to have things like Facebook and Twitter. They say that they are for connecting with their friends, but they are really used to advertise their lives in order to seem relevant in their lives. Mine and everyone else's lives are not relevant by themselves. They as a collective matter for the progression of history. This may seem off tangent, but it is an explanation of what ego-maniacs are and aren't.
This house would grant politicians immunity from prosecution

Debating on the motion which is : This house would grant politicians immunity from prosecution. I on the opposition side believes that politicians should not be granted immunity from prosecution because of the following reasons: 1.) The ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power : It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state. In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians. Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping. These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence. There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians. 2.)Politicians who commit crimes are likely unfit to serve : The sort of person who commits an offense has demonstrated irresponsibility and so is unworthy of the public trust. Would any reasonable citizen wanted to be represented by a domestic abuser, or have a fraudster manage the public treasury? While almost all people are capable of atonement and redemption, someone who commits crimes worthy of prosecution while in office ought to be immediately removed for the betterment of the state.
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game."

You are correct in saying that fast food companies do not have a warning label, However it is also true that it is common knowledge that fast food makes you unhealthy. The reason smokes and drinks have warnings is due to the fact they have drugs in them and are by law required to warn consumers. Fat, however is not a drug and does not need a warning. the duty of fast companies is t serve fast food (it is common knowledge that this unhealth) and consumers are eating at their own risk
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game."

Point 1: Fast restaurants do not have a warning label. Sub A: They know the danger involved and as smoke and drink companies they will be label properly the food. A normal person do not know the process and the ingredients. Sub B: The proper behavior of companies will be to protect their own customers and be aware. It probably reduce their incomes but it will be better for the future of the food companies.
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game."

Although the fast food companies are providing the food, they do not promote it as being healthy their is and do not intend for it to be eaten regularly. McDonalds is a burger chain and hence sells burgers, people go to McDonalds to eat burgers, if people wanted salads they would go to a salad bar. It is McDonalds' job to sell burgers and not to keep their consumers healthy. Eating in moderation does not make you addicted and as McDonalds does not advertise their food as something you should eat everyday, it is not their fault that people are obese
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game."

point 3: Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy and huge meals. Sub A: As the health care costs of treating obesity-related illnesses mount, some are looking to place the blame for increasing obesity rates on the purveyors of fast food. Facing fierce competition for customer loyalty, fast food chains such as McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's have promoted their over-sized burgers, extra-large servings for fries, and buckets of soda, all at low prices. fast food restaurants can also lower the fat content they put in their food and serve healthier stuff.
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game."

Fast food tastes good and may be addictive, however the consumer always has the option to not eat it. Sugar may also be addictive but fast food is not the only way we get sugar into our bodies. My last point is that it is common knowledge that fast food is unhealthy and consumers should take this in mind when purchasing fast food and only eat in moderation as it is not addictive that way
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game."

Point 2: Fast food restaurants have a way to addict you to crave fast food. Sub A: You Crave For Sweet and Oily Food. Sugar is addictive in all ways; it triggers reactions in our bodies that make us feel very 'high' due to the insulin spike in our body. Sub B: Combined with the fats which you get from fast food, they form the perfect combination that is almost as addictive as heroin. mostly everything is full of sugar, even their salads
The Chinese Government is a Terrorist Cell

"How can you argue that China is not in a state of rebellion against their dictators when they have to be threatened with violence to fund them?" -- This statement doesn't really fit the argument and coincides with what I said above in the debate which is that people must pay taxes and if you don't you're threatened by an officer of the law who is usually armed. So if that's what you're trying to say then fine you can make that stretch if you'd like. But in modern day China people don't disappear from their homes for misspelling their name on a tax return form. The China you're thinking about is the China of the 1960's-1970's and the cultural revolution. China today is nothing like the China of 40-50 years ago. "they must be allowed to fund it voluntarily "-- If given the voluntary chance to pay taxes my guess would be that 0% of people would pay the taxes they are currently paying. Nobody wants to pay taxes but that doesn't mean you hate the government. Do I want to pay taxes every year? No. Do I hate my government? No. No one will voluntarily pay for anything, its human nature to want to save for yourself but that doesn't mean that its in connection to a hatred of government. "In terms of the fear factor regarding my label of "terrorist organization", "-- My opponent has changed his own wording and is using a false quote here. He never labeled the Chinese as a terrorist organization. This may be besides the point but I want to point out my opponents failure to stay consistent with his reasoning. His original wording way "terrorist cell" and when I pointed out the error in that phrase he changes it to an organization. I have clearly beaten him on the topic of the debate. Once again I would like to point out how the Chinese people are not coerced, terrorized or threatened in the ways my opponent claims, what he is describing is a normal justice system for any developed or developing nation. If you evade your taxes you will be arrested, not coerced. If you perform a violent crime I suppose you could be threatened while you are taken into custody but there is no more Culture Revolution in China, no more Great Leap Forward, no more aggressive communism. It is now essentially a one-party state with a government regulated pseudo-capitalist economy. People are happy in China like I pointed out before, not terrorized.*****My opponent used nonsensical anarchist ramblings, presented no factual evidence to back up his claims, presented no sources at all, and dodged direct debate whenever possible. An interesting and technical debate to be sure. Do the smart thing, vote Con.Thank you.Fin