BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the Mentally Ill Be Barred From Owning Firearms

First, this is intended for someone that believes in the fundamental right to own a firearm, and is thus about the specific rights of the mentally ill to own them. While mentally ill is a term that varies in use, I'm also specifically talking about more serious illnesses, that many people tend to consider as making people more dangerous (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, etc.). But if you want to bring up others, by all means do so. The facts are important for this argument. The mentally ill are not exceptionally more likely to commit crime than others. According to this article (http://mentalillnesspolicy.org...) the main case in which violence was noted was if medicines weren't taken. And they're also more likely to be victims (https://www.sciencedaily.com...). Statistics are not even necessary to make this argument, as depriving people of their rights over a statistical probability to be more violent smells like discrimination. Men and blacks are more likely to commit crime, but does that make it okay to only allow white/asian women to own guns? So not only is there a small increase in violence, but my contention is that even if there were it would not merit state persecution of all the mentally ill. So why would want to ban them from owning weapons? Some say that it protects them from themselves, due to the fact that most gun deaths are suicides, and there is a link between mental illness and suicide (I assume this is undisputed, but if you want to contend that point I can find a source). But this assumes that depriving many of their rights in order to protect a few from themselves would be justified, which I disagree with. By that logic, why are they allowed to own cars? Why don't we just lock them all up for good to protect those that would kill themselves? You can't violate someone's rights just because they're more likely to harm themselves; that's as ridiculous as banning people from spending a certain amount on shopping, because some would spend too much. The main question is how can you justify taking away guns from the mentally ill?
Who can write a more depressing piece

Down in the paddy fields Surrounded by the Vietcong We can find the biggest snake of all His name is Thomas Yong Or is he a dog? Coz you are what you eat Well I"d like to quote the great lachy mac Who said "Tom"s streaks are his greatest feat" He thinks he is hot And gets girls into his bed But they scream and run away With one look of his head The only thing he's achieved in life Is two hundred and fifty insta likes Guess what? No one cares Go KYS your f*cking dyke! Do two snakes make a right? Coz Jason Jayas your only friend The whole world would be much happier If your life would end.
Who can write a more depressing piece

The words stick like a glue As it sinks into my skin. The assumption are dire but true, Ravaging the conscience to begin. Deranged is what becomes of my piece of mind As the guilt inexorably attaches. Bonded to one's pride - my dignity is left behind - And my self-esteem is left with cuts and scratches. As the cuts on my wrist turn into scars and dry My mother stares at me in fear of what else i"ll do. I don"t know how to fight off the monsters that are locked inside; They"re right under the surface trying to break through. Life seems insignificant, All sense of self-worth has died And i"m merely hanging on by a thread. Along with the people I know, My emotions are pushed aside, To succumb to resentment, I"d rather be dead.
Is lady gaga weird

Firstly, you have made no logical argument except that lady gaga is weird because she is a bad influence on kids. In order to win, you must prove that: 1. She is a bad influence on kids (what do you mean by 'bad'?) 2. She has a bad attitude (what do you mean by 'bad'?) 3. She is weird (compared to whom? what? and what is weird anyway?) 4. And that she is being inappropriate by being weird 5. Then explain why singing should not be allowed under these circumstances I must say, this is a very humorous topic.
Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

I used the very real example of a home that is deemed unfit to live, on the brink of collapsing. That is an immediate danger. In that specific scenario a rich person should not be able to live in the home because their life would be in immediate danger. My job here is to prove that there are circumstances where rich people should not be able to live in any home they can afford. That is one specific case where a rich person should not be allowed to live in any home they can afford. As for me assuming something about a non-existent group of people, if you are allowed to create a theoretical person who can afford to live anywhere they want, but chooses to live in a condemned, derelict home, I think it is only fair that I comment on the sanity of said person; especially considering you brushed off one of my earlier points regarding hoarders having their homes taken away from them due to uninhabitable conditions by basically saying 'that does not count because they are crazy'. If loading up one's house with so much junk that it puts your own health and safety at risk is deemed mentally unstable, I would think that it is very much fair to argue that placing oneself in a home that puts your health and safety at risk, especially when said person has the means to avoid such conditions, should be treated equally. I forgot to post the link to my reference in round 3. I just pulled a definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, so here is the citation now: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

You mentioned that "The government seems to have a standard where they will protect people in situations where their lives are immediately at risk, ie. seat-belts, suicide threats, etc. " and that "Smoking is an example of something that will not kill you on the spot." Now if I were to take on these believes you have, would I not think that since living in a derelict home would not kill me right away, and is not an immediate risk, that the Government should not bother with it, and that the rich person should be allowed to live in it? Your statements as listed above would not seem to result in your opinion. As for your second point, I would like to bring up that you are assuming something about a non-existent person/group of people. This debate is merely theoretical; there are no people with abundant possessions and especially material wealth who live in a derelict condemned home as far as we know. To say that people who would do this are most likely insane is to say that aliens are most likely insane. There is no basis for it, as we don't know enough information about them.
Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

I will admit that my first post is not completely relevant. That was just a side note because I don't understand why a distinction should be made that rich people should be allowed certain rights. To me that comes across as saying that poor people are not worthy of the same rights. If they were, then there would be no need to make a distinction. The government seems to have a standard where they will protect people in situations where their lives are immediately at risk, ie. seatbelts, suicide threats, etc. Smoking is an example of something that will not kill you on the spot. It is proven to have very negative long term effects on health, but you won't drop dead on the spot from smoking a cigarette. Eating unhealthy food also has negative effects on health, but the government does have to draw some lines in the sand. However, if a house is deemed unfit to live, and has the potential to collapse at any time, I would argue that a person should not be allowed to live in the house, regardless of how much money they have. Now I know that is a specific case, but my BOP in this debate is to merely show that there are some homes that rich people can afford in which they should not be allowed to live. I would also be willing to put forth the argument that any "rich" person (which I would define as "having abundant possessions and especially material wealth" [1]) who is willing to live in a derelict, condemned home that is a danger to their health and safety should be considered about as mentally unstable as a hoarder and should be handled as such by the governing body.
Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

Your first point is irrelevant. The question presented was not related to poor people. It was only related to the wealthy. Assuming circumstances where I specified that poor people could not own any home they could afford will not help you in any way. To address your second point, I would like to point out that I agree that society has rules in place to ensure peoples safety. The Government has and should have the right to protect its citizens from threat. However, it is much different if I decide to put MYSELF under threat. Smoking is legal. I can smoke all I want, no matter how harmful it is to me, as long as the second hand smoke does not negatively affect someone else against there will. Marijuana, a drug that is legal in some states in the U.S.A, has been made legal for the same reasons. You seem to really think that the Government is very partial to aiding its citizens, but, considering these things are legal, and the Government actually profits from them, I believe you may want rethink your premises. You mentioned the show Hoarders, and the act of attempting suicide. The people in the show, and the people who attempt to commit suicide, may be putting themselves at harm, but not necessarily willingly. They are all usually suffering from mental instability, and possibly illness (many times depression). They cannot decide for themselves if hoarding is the best for them, or if suicide is best for them, therefore, it would be fully called for to prevent them from living in a home with such terrible conditions, or to prevent them from trying to kill themselves again. To specify my point even farther: If I were to force another man to live in a derelict home, the law should stop me. However, if I were to willingly occupy and live in a home that endangers my safety, and I am suffering from no mental afflictions, and I believe it is best for me, what gives anyone the right , Government or person, to prevent me from doing it? Am I still a fully functioning individual if choices are being made for me? Is it really a democracy anymore if I am forced to abide by rules that I do not believe are helping me? No.
Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

Why should the amount of money a person has dictate whether or not he/she should be allowed to do something? Why not just say that any person should be able to live in any home they can afford? By your standards, should a poor person not be allowed to live in a home they can afford? You would think that the morality should be the same for everyone, regardless of how much money they have, but the amount of money they have would dictate the type of home that they can afford. Regardless of that, I stand by my original argument. Society has rules in place to ensure people's safety. Seat belts in cars are there to protect people. They can be fined for not wearing them because the government reserves the right to put rules in place in order to protect the safety of its people. Have you ever seen the TV show 'Hoarders'? People live in derelict places and sometimes they will be kicked out of their houses because they are deemed unfit to live. Another example of the government protecting people who won't protect themselves would be people who try to commit suicide and fail. They are put on watch and police/nurses/security guards try to help make sure that they person can't try it again. My point for all of this is that just because someone wants to do something that is damaging to their health and safety, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it. Living in a house that is condemned or deemed unfit to live is putting your health and safety at risk, and it is in the government's interest to protect the health and safety of it's people.
Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

What is not logical about my points? If a house is decrepit - on the brink of collapsing - it is perfectly reasonable for a governing body to step in and prevent someone from living there. Hoarders don't get kicked out of their houses because they are crazy, they get kicked out of their houses because the place is deemed unfit to live. Hoarding is seen as a disease, but that in itself is not enough to have a person removed from their home. In the US (I am Canadian by the way, so I don't have your constitution memorized) the founding fathers compiled a list of logical rules because they understood that people act irrationally very often. The constitution is there to be a voice of reason for the governing body; to try and prevent them from acting irrationally. Is it irrational to prevent someone from doing something that could kill them on the spot? For your information, I am also an atheist and share your views on the horrors that religions have caused all across the world. But that is so completely irrelevant to this topic. Those are examples of groups who manipulate people using a claim that the group has some level of control over people's afterlife. This is a discussion about whether or not people should be allowed to live in a home that is unsafe and could collapse at any point when one can afford to live elsewhere. You list so many straw-man arguments about what else the government should be able to control. Voting and abortion are separate issues that are irrelevant to this discussion. Your resolution claims that rich people should be able to live in any home that they can afford. My response is that they should not be able to live in a home that has been deemed unfit to live; or that is on the brink of collapsing. My argument is that the government has a responsibility to protect its people when they can't protect themselves. If someone, who has the means to live elsewhere, chooses to live in a place that puts their life in immediate danger, I argue that they are incapable of protecting themselves and it is up to the government to step in. That person is acting irrationally and needlessly putting their own life at risk. I could have played a game of semantics here as well, instead of this argument, by saying that if they can afford a house, but that house is on fire, based on what we understand about the human anatomy, they should not be able to live in that house... they would most likely die if they chose to remain there. But instead, I chose to go with a relatively serious rebuttal and I am quite pleased with how it turned out. Thank you for the debate.
New fighters for the next Smash Bros game

WHy should we not allow Amaterasu? She is too overpowered in the game she is already in, and she would be to overpowered in Smash. Of course you could nerf the strongest parts, but that would make the game no fun! Pro says that Amaterasu could have her storyline, but why create a sotryline, when someone else already has a perfectly great one. Pro says that suggjesting her is a Minority, no your not a minortity, and stop trying to get minority support! I just joking on that one, but It doesn't matter if it is a minoprioty or not, she is a great character, but not suitable for smash. Her "Ink Jars" are quite stupid, and shouldnt be allowed even if it was added, it would be annoying. To be honest Black Mage is more powerfull on his own, then just with one attack. As I usally say, thank you for my oppenent for letting me challenge them.
New fighters for the next Smash Bros game

Super Smash Bros is a really good fighting game, where video game mascots like Mario and Sonic and Mega Man brawl in various areas from video games. Everyone is requesting new fighters to join, so I decided to make this debate. Debating Rules: 1. You may only pick 1 video game character (unless it's a pair like Rosalina & Luma, or the Ice Climbers) 2. You can only choose a character that originated from a movie. (Like you can't choose Elsa, because she came from a movie) 3. When choosing your character, you'll have to give a good explanation for why he/she/it should join Smash Bros. 4. You must also have some moves chosen for your character. This will include some Special Moves, and a Final Smash. 5. No trolling of any kind. 6. If you time out once, you lose conduct points. Time out again, and That is a concession. 7. Timing out in Round 4 is an instant concession. 8. You are able to choose any video game character from any company, any gaming platform (system). 9. First round is acceptance only. No arguments in the first round. Voting Rules: 1. The voters will try to remove all bias in their vote. 2. Whichever debater has a better reason for their character being in Smash Bros will receive argument points. Round Structure: Round 1: Each debater will say their chosen character, and from what game. The contender will accept the debate only. Round 2: Both debaters will give a few moves that the character would have, as well as why that character should be in Smash Bros. Round 3: If needed, the debaters will refute the opponent's decision and defend their own. Round 4: The debaters will recap their arguments, and defend if necessary. My character will be Amateratsu from the video game Okami, for the Nintendo Wii. Let's see who my opponent will choose
New fighters for the next Smash Bros game

I thank Con for attending the 2nd round. I'll be defending the notion that Amaterasu would be good for Smash Bros this round. Defense: "She is too overpowered in the game she is already in, and she would be to overpowered in Smash." Bayonetta is in Smash Bros, and she's pretty powerful in her game! What did Nintendo do about this? They nerfed her, of course! "but that would make the game no fun!" So do you want Amaterasu to be powerful or not? I already have the moves, which are powerful, but have limited usage. "Pro says that Amaterasu could have her storyline, but why create a sotryline, when someone else already has a perfectly great one." Have you even played Smash Bros Brawl? All of the characters join together, with different starting objectives, and eventually take on a big opponent. We're creating a new story, where all characters exist within the same universe. Whether they already had a good story line or not is irrelevant. "Her "Ink Jars" are quite stupid, and shouldnt be allowed even if it was added, it would be annoying." Well, Robin has a similar mechanic. If need be, we could have Amaterasu have 7 Ink Jars that replenish 1 jar per 15 seconds. "To be honest Black Mage is more powerfull on his own, then just with one attack." Okay, you contradicted yourself. Amaterasu can't be powerful, but Black Mage can be "more powerful"? That makes no sense. And I never said anyone has only one attack. I gave Amaterasu all 4 Special Moves. You gave Black Mage the entire move set. This point is downright invalid. Argument: A recap of Amaterasu: If Amaterasu was in Smash Bros, her special attacks would involve Power Slash (Neutral B), Hurricane (Side B), Cherry Bomb (Down B), and Waterspout (Up B). These attacks can be quite powerful (Waterspout is mainly for recovery), especially Cherry Bomb. To balance this, Amaterasu will have a limited amount of Ink Jars to use, 5 of them. The player will have to use these attacks cautiously, and make the most of them. If need be, we can give Amaterasu 7 Ink Jars for her Celestial Brush. Amaterasu has also not yet been in even a fan game (At least that I know of). This can give her the ability to have an entirely new move set. Smash Bros is known for making good move sets, and this is easiest if there aren't any move sets already taken. Closing thoughts: Again, Amaterasu has been shown to be a unique fighter, relying on strategy instead of all out attacking. Her good finishing attacks would involve her Smash Attacks, and Special Attacks (not including Waterspout). With this, let's see what our opponent will come up with next, eh, Ammy?
God probably does not exist

probably: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected [1] Ergo, my opponent, Pro, must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that God does not exist. Otherwise, it can be assumed that God constitutes an explanation of the universe's existence; an explanation which has some likelihood, however small, of being the truth. Semantics: My opponents definition is that of a god, not of the Abrahamic God. Thus, there is no reason to believe that he is omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent. Also, given that his definition stems from Richard Dawkins' work, I would like to provide a more neutral one, being: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [2]. Neither definition, of course, grants a "god" the powers which my opponent has detailed in his arguments. Given that a god is not necessarily omni-potent, scient, etc., my opponents "proofs", which constitute the entirety of his argument, fall. However, I will refute each briefly, under the assumption that a god is omni-excellent, though I do not concede that statement. AFE: As mere mortals, we cannot state with certainty what is good, and what is evil, or that either of them exists. Ironically, most who oppose this "moral relativism" state that we derive good and evil from some sort of deity. [3] TPoO: An omnipotent god can create a rock of any dimensions, presumably, even one which is infinite. However, he is further capable of lifting a rock of any size or weight. "So heavy that he cannot lift it" is not a quantity, but merely an failed attempt to demonstrate a logical fallacy. Such a rock does not, and cannot exist, for a rock must have certain dimensions. [4] AfPD: Due to lack of space, see AFE. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://simple.wikipedia.org...
God probably does not exist

The parameters: God is "a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation."1 Existence is "the fact or state of continued being."2 I will begin with the "Argument From Evil": 1. If God exists, then God is wholly good and omnipotent. 2. A wholly good God would want to actualize the best possible world. 3. The best possible world would contain the greatest possible surplus of good over evil. 4. A world with the greatest possible surplus of good over evil would be a world devoid of evil. 5. An omnipotent God could actualize any world. 6. Evil exists. 7. Therefore, God does not exist.3 Next, "The Paradox of Omnipotence" (1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. (2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. (3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore: (4) God is not omnipotent. (5) If God exists then he is omnipotent. Therefore: (6) God does not exist.4 Finally, I conclude with the "argument from poor design" 1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. 2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. 3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.5 1The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins 2http://dictionary.reference.com... 3The University of Texas Skeptical Society 4http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... 5http://en.wikipedia.org...