BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun rights

Firstly I would like to point out that there has been a misunderstanding. Pro"s job is to prove why guns should be legal and Con"s job is to prove why they should not be legal. By proving I mean that we both need to bring up different sources that support our arguments, like I have done. When the debate is finished there will be a voting period. This voting period is made so the winner can be found and the factors we will be judged on, is who the person agreed with BEFORE the debate, who the person agree with AFTER the debate, who had better conduct, who had better spelling and grammar, who made more convincing arguments and who used the most reliable sources, and of cause a reason for the decision. " Secondly I would like to point out that Pro fails to prove any of his arguments which make them invalid e. g. "Along with wasting time by saying that,"without guns, murder would be fixable. " That is not true. The world is a crazy place filled with crazy people, and not possessing a gun is not going to stop a killer from killing. " I would like to draw attention to my previous arguments and links. ==Conclusion== Pro makes a lot of arguments but fails to support them with any valid expert opinions. Pro fails to prove my arguments wrong; he just uses personal opinions and fails to support them. Pro even claims that: "You try to sound all sophisticated by using websites, and "facts" but in the end this particular debate is over my opinion and yours. And mine just happens to be the right one. Hope you can learn little from this and maybe change your views on having gun laws. " In the end, I would just like to point out that in a debate, you need to bring up facts and expert opinions to support your arguments, or else there would be no chance for any of us, to prove why our arguments is better than the opponent"s arguments.
Gun rights

You're arguing the same statement I am by saying that the debate is to prove that I am right and you are wrong. So you can lay off of that and actually say something worth my time or you can keep coming to that. Along with wasting time by saying that,"without guns, murder would be fixable." That is not true. The world is a crazy place filled with crazy people, and not possessing a gun is not going to stop a killer from killing. And if you believe that then you need to check yourself and step out into the real world before you get into a bad situation. We as Americans have the right to protect ourselves if it is justified. And the people who we would need protection from are the ones that will keep the guns against the laws. Then what do we do? Let hem steal from us, hurt us, take advantage of us, even kill us. One saying that applies to this topic is that of, "if something isn't broken, don't try to fix it." You can bring up the murder rate all you want or the father of the daughter but that has nothing to do with the right to a man bearing his own gun. The gun didn't make the father decide to kill the boy, he did it himself wether he used a gun or not, it is his fault not the gun he did it with. You try to sound all sophisticated by using websites, and "facts" but in the end this particular debate is over my opinion and yours. And mine just happens to be the right one. Hope you can learn little from this and maybe change your views on having gun laws.
Gun rights

Firstly I would like to correct you: The point of this debate is to prove why your statements are better than mine and to convince me and all others that look at this debate that you are right and I am wrong. This means that you need to bring up more than just personal opinions. Pro claims that: "bringing up the murder rate is a good point, but that is an unfixable problem." The murder rate is not an unfixable problem because when the murder rate is calculated, it contains all the murders with guns, including mass shootings, school shootings and even a father that killed his daughter"s lover just because he found them in bed together. [4] Let us talk about the school shootings first. A school shooting requires a gun and without a gun, there would be no school shooting. Pro states: "if someone wants to murder someone else and they do not have a gun, what is going to stop them from using a knife" If someone wanted to make a school "shooting" with a knife then it would be so much more difficult because he is not that dangerous as if he had a gun. If he went into a class room with a knife, then he would not stand a chance against a whole class on, let us say 20 students and 1 teacher. Now let us talk about the father. If the father did not have a gun then he would not be able to shoot his daughter"s lover but he would be able to beat him or even go for a knife in the kitchen, but it would not be the same, because the lack of an easy firearm takes away the temptation, the temptation was there because he saw the guy reaching for something. If the father knew that guns were not that common, then he would maybe not have thought that it was something dangerous. AKA he would not have any right to shoot and kill the poor guy. [4] [5] [6] [4] http://www.usnews.com... [5] http://aeon.co... [6] http://edition.cnn.com...
Gun rights

Ok, first of all, the whole point of having this debate is to share your opinion. You share yours and I'll share mine. So don't try to hit me with the "opinion card". And thank you for reinstating my point of the second amendment allowing citizens to bear arms. However, bringing up the murder rate is a good point, but that is an unfixable problem. With gun laws the criminals will be the ones to keep the guns illegally, and the law abiding citizens will be the ones punished. Also, if someone wants to murder someone else and they do not have a gun, what is going to stop them from using a knife. Yes, it is easier to kill a man with a gun, but it is not the gun that kills the person, it is the man/women that pulled the trigger. And that same person that pulled the trigger will just as easily use a knife or another object to kill.
Gun rights

I accept. Firstly I would like to point out that Pro fails to prove his argument. He only uses personal opinions. "The 2nd amendment states that we as Americans are rightful to bare arms. Our country works on what our forefathers built our nation with, and guns are a right to the citizens of America." The second amendment says: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [1] The second amendment was passed along with 9 other amendments which are called the Bill Of Rights. It was ratified along with the nine other amendments on December 17, 1791. The situation in 1791 was very different than the situation is today. The second amendment was made to ensure the safety of a free state. Back then they had no real powers to protect the individual"s rights so therefore it was up to the individual to protect it. Now we have so many chances to get help, which means that no-one is left alone. The Government makes sure that our individual rights are safe. Our individual rights are protected by the police and the military. This difference in time and situations makes the second amendment outdated. We do not need the same protection because we have so many other possibilities then having a gun in the house. [2] "Taking guns from an American is like taking water from a fish." Pro state that the gun law in is a basic need for survival for an American, like water is for a fish. Pro fails to add any proof that makes his statement valid. Guns are not a basic need for survival in America. Guns are the main murder weapon in America. The percentage of murders that has been committed with a gun is 68% of all the murderers in America. [3] [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://finance.townhall.com... [3] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Gun rights

Owning a gun is a right to citizens in America and needs to be allowed. The 2nd amendment states that we as Americans are rightful to bare arms. Our country works on what our forefathers built our nation with, and guns are a right to the citizens of America. Taking guns from an American is like taking water from a fish. It just doesn't work out. So as a nation we need to stick to who we are and allow guns to the citizens who qualify for owning a firearm.
Labeling children as any religious denomination is wrong

Well, it seems my opponent is convinced he has made his point. He has not refuted any of my points, and completely failed and/or refused to oppose my second round arguments. I have proven that per my opponent's definition of "wrong", his premise is not true. There is nothing wrong with labeling children as their parents see fit, especially once that child has reached an age where they understand the religion. He did not refute the ages of the children I presented, and per his definition even an 18 year old is still a child. On a personal note, I am no longer Christian. When I was 16 I was, and no problem with being labeled one. I know now that I fully understood at the time what a Christian was, and feel that the label helped me more than it could have hurt me seeing as how I come from a very violent hometown. Violence is very rarely manifested against "Christians" where I come from, and the label helped me survive in a city with 40,000 population, and twice the crime rate of Chicago and DC combined. It is also important to note that a large portion of DDO members are "children" by my opponent's definition. Many choose to identify themselves by the religious, and even political leanings they have learned at this age to follow. My opponent has not shown how it is wrong for any of them to do this, nor has he shown how it is wrong for parents to teach their kids to follow in their own footsteps, whatever religious label that may lead to. I urge you to vote Con. Thank you.
Labeling children as any religious denomination is wrong

Thanks to the opponent who accepts my debate. First let me make clear that I am not attempting to prove anything about religion and/or it's validity. The focus of this debate is why it is wrong to label children as any religious denomination, including labeling them "atheist" (ie "Christian Child, Buddhist Child) I also want to make clear that I am not going to debate whether or not labeling children as a particular religious denomination is abuse. That's for a different debate. I claim it is simply wrong. A few definitions to start. Wrong: Not in accordance with what is morally right or good. Child: A person between birth and full growth Mature: Fully developed in body or mind Complex: Composed of many inter connected parts I. My first argument will be that children are not mature enough to understand the complexity of religious ideas. Labeling children "Christian" or "Hindu" ect, is no different than labeling them as "Democrat", "Fascist", or "Communist" ect. These ideas are far too complex for an immature child to understand, and therefore to label them as such is wrong. II. To elaborate on the argument made in point I regarding the sheer complexity of religious ideas. Just as being a "democrat" or "republican" implies that one is capable of understanding complex political terminology and positions such as "liberal" or "conservative", religious ideologies contain equally difficult terms and ideas such as "spirits", "salvation", "sin", "reincarnation", "heaven and hell", "purgatory", ect. To assume that a child is mature enough to grasp the sheer complexity of these ideas enough to make a rational decision on what they are "religiously" is foolish. Which brings me to my final argument regarding personal choice. III. By labeling a child as any religious denomination bars that individual from the right to make their own decision about personal belief. Religion should be a decision made only by the individual, and should never be imprinted upon them when they are still of an age which they are more concerned with playing in the mud. Labeling children imprints an idea upon their confused minds, thereby making it more difficult if not impossible to rethink their position on such a delicate personal belief later in life. Therefore labeling children as any religious denomination is always and wholly wrong.
Rap battle

Oh looks its already the last round, And just like that you have been crushed down to the ground, It is pretty safe to say that I have destroyed you, So just give up AS YOU ARE POO, On the bars front you've come up a little short, I've thrashed you even while on the snort, I think it is about time that you just shut up, When I look at you I just think "wow I guess God just gave up", You are the perfect advertisement for contraception my man, To save everyone's sanity you should be put under a rap ban, As we approach the end of this rap battle let me say just two things, What on earth were you even thinking you can't even sing, I'm as good as Google, YOU'RE AS USELESS AS BING
Rap battle

I'll sit you down with this 88 Wanna know why? Cause you (shoe) plastic like bathing apes Im a chicken? Well im covered in bread like Shake n Bake And you can get smoked in the morning like Wake n Bake You've made mistakes, But I must say this worse And he'll disperse once you end up in a hearse Go ahead and test my G and you can get hurt You'll be standing by your organs like a church When I give him hits that'll leave his body bubbles popping, I'm testing him Leave each body part separate I'm testing him section him This situation should tell him don't f*ck with me because I'm pulling up with twin glocks: replicas Just like Bonnie and Clyde, You'll see a couple shoot I'll put you over a cliff like Clair Huxtable
Rap battle

Calling my bars bad, What the hell is up with that, Your raps are just sad, Mine will give you a big slap, On this verse I'm going to absolutely roast YOU'RE WEAK, By doing so I could feed my family for a week, As your body has so much meat, Listen up hot stuff you're not the best rapper here, THAT'S ME! You ain't the star here, THAT'S ME! Hey here's a riddle for you that's impossible to work out, Why the hell did a poor rapper choose to start a rap battle, LIKE FAM, WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT? ! Your move
Rap battle

You aren't worthy of being an opponent, You're just a punching bag How you gone dodge a bullet but you can't dip or jab You can't bob and weave these haymakers, I got the gift of gab First you'll get an uppercut and then a blade cause dudes like you who try to box get stabbed My 38 got a long nose I call it Gonzo It crash down on this whore net like its alonzo This bird a lucifer out in the morning like a junco One shot to your maple leaf now you blue like Toronto Lead pop, I doubt that i miss a head shot Like if I was down with the mug, Thats a red dot The mac will leave a piece of your apple on the desktop Bird, Snake sleep with the fishes thats a pet shop The pistol is long, My temper short enough My bars cold, Hot-headed dude but im just warming up Your turn
Rap battle

Hey that's real poor, Bringing those lines to a lyrical war, Your ego won't fit through the door, But your whole vocabulary could fit in just one tweet, On the screen it says you are "pro" But anyone who sees your bars would look at that and think "HELL NO! " I'm sure your life is one big mistake, But having a rap battle with me will really put you to the steak, If you were presented in the Ireland abortion referendum, The vote would of been a 100% yes vote landslide NO QUESTION! Your turn now good sir.
Rap battle

God, Look what you got him into The grave ima guide him into When you die, You better hope that you sent to that God I'm into If God ask why I did it, Ima say "God I meant to" Blade on my waste, Slice him in half now I got him in two Test me, Get a cracked head and a neck shot Paralyzed from the neck down, He can't even play his X box You think your gonna beat me? You will get head locked DDT'd, Leg dropped then get beat with a pad lock There's wins under my belt, You're another I take the strap, Sean Paul make it clap on a buster You're a sucker, Idgaf about you or your mother They say I'm looney, And a maniac I tried to warn a brother You're not a crook, Think I'll get shook till your top get pushed I'll get this b*tch bagged with the strap, Thats a pocket book Come on my block, You'll chain get snatched, Watch get took You don't have a hard bone in your body, Octopus Your turn.
Bad websites should be banned for ever

"Some students might be there..... Like gay couples lesbians and others......" What exactly is the relevancy of that statement? Also, just because something is bad doesn't mean you can ban it. http://en.wikipedia.org... In 1996 the Communications Decency Act tried to regulate indecency and obscenity on the internet. The Supreme Court found that it is unconstitutional to block pornography or obscenity, as it infringes upon the free speech of adults.
Bad websites should be banned for ever

They should be banned Because if they are not banned then those students who watch them will have bad education. Good Morning Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen. I came here today to say that those bad websites should banned forever! I also want to say that they give bad education to people and it might be really hard to make those people who are going on them get banned! I restate my world and say : Bad websites should be banned for ever
Marijuana should be legalized

Decriminalizing, I could accept that. I just hate seeing people get arrested for simple possession of it. It goes on their permanent record and they weren't causing any harm to anybody. If it was legal, that wouldn't be an issue, and also those hardcore drug dealers who grow it and make 300,000 dollars a year with no taxes wouldn't be able to get away with that. There are so many hardworking and honest people that make barely any money, yet growers can pull in major bank from growing it. Plus the trafficking of marijuana is what leads to all the violence. If it's legal, we don't have to worry about the violence that comes with that. Plus, we could grow it recreationally to smoke, and not just to make a ton of money. Actually, keeping marijuana illegal is costing us a ton of money. We spend millions, possibly billions on anti-marijuana campaigns, and police forces to enforce marijuana laws and raid marijuana gardens. Those people that go to jail, well the money the taxpayers pay goes towards prisons. Do you really want your money going towards the arrest of a peaceful, harmless person who just happens to like to get high? Not me. We currently spend more than twice as much money on police forces to chase down marijuana than we do on public education. What a joke. If it's legalized, we could finally start spending money on useful things.
Marijuana should be legalized

I'm just arguing why it shouldn't be legal. seriously think of the people you have to deal with in a day that irritate you then make them high. see the point. it would be so much worse to be around. i know of the well known individuals who smoke weed and yet they don't need it legal to do it. people have been getting by just fine for the last 100 years or so with out it being legal the American population still gets high. you make it legal then you have taxes you have days you cant obtain the product just like with alcohol. i under stand your ideals on why it should be ok to smoke weed but i think it's better where it's at. people who smoke weed can obtain it when they want. people who don't. don't need the opportunity to become more annoying than they are now. you want to slow down crime just stop arresting people for it. want to save tax money stop arresting people for it.what i truly think you want is not a full scale legalization but just the end of arresting people who enjoy smoking a hoot. to legalize would bring an entire new era of horrible issues with weed.oh and what was your smell comment about?
Marijuana should be legalized

Okay, first of all, every point you brought up didn't address my points that favored legalization. But I will adress your problems. First of all, we shouldn't keep it illegal just because you personally don't like how it makes people behave. We have kept many prescription drugs and alcohol legal, and frankly those two things alone make people act a lot stupider than people purely on marijuana. Alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana. Anyway, I know plenty of intellectual and intelligent people that partake with marijuana. Some famous people include Carl Sagan (Renowned astrophysicist), Ted Turner (founder of CNN whom still enjoys a joint everyday), Stephen King (Famous author), etc. And the smell is very easy to get rid of. Believe me, as a teenager, I have been in friends rooms where the smell has to be eliminated, and they succeed. It is a natural plant that is considered worse than alcohol, and compared to drugs like cocaine in heroin, when really marijuana is the safer alternative. It doesn't kill brain cells, recent studies say it increases brain activity. http://budfacts.com...
Marijuana should be legalized

i think it should stay illegal becuse i really hate the attitude of most people i'm around when they are stoned off smoking grass. seriously they bother me.second: right now it's cheap i go get a half an ouce of some really nice soft fluffy bubs covered in hairs that stinks up the room in a few momnets and pay 100.00 american dollars if it was legal it would cost more taxes be a pain to deal with have to leave my ouse go to a store deal with the public. as it is today i send a text 20 minutes go by a person comes in they leave i smoke.