BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guns.

Should guns be allowed in America at all? More and more people seem to die each day due to guns. Today, a 6 year old got shot in the head because a 4 year old had a gun. If the parents were careful and didn't have the gun, the 6 year old would have been enjoying the day as most of us. I believe only law enforcement officers and security gourds should be armed because they will be professionally trained to handle a weapon. You never know who might get a gun legally and misplace it or even lend it to a madman. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Why should we have to live in these conditions? Our kids are growing up with all these violent crimes around them. Getting rid of guns will be a option to reduce these violent activities from occurring. Imagine your loved one being held at gun-point or even being shot. What would you do? How much would it hurt? Would you ask yourself if you could have done something before? Guns are used in all types of crimes. So please vote on this. I just want to know what peoples opinions are. Vote yes if you agree guns should be banned throughout the U.S. Vote no if you agree guns should be allowed throughout hate U.S.To check out the situation about the kids please go to this website.http://newjersey.news12.com...
Second hand smoke is BS

I don't know how people get that. The entire scientific world says that there is no solid evidence that this phenomenon takes place. Any scientist with integrity will tell you,despite how much he dislikes smoke, that SHS does not have any serious bad effects on your health. All sites i visited say: "Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year to non-smokers.... are estimated to have been caused by ETS (second hand smoke) in the US." The scientific evidence on that is at best scanty. But in 1998, a federal court had this to say about the EPA: There was no link between SHS and cancer, and worse that the EPA had intentionally ignored scientific data that contradicted a predetermined conclusion. In simpler words, they faked it, and people fell for it. It's the same EPA test that you found, and anyone can find in any site, that say the same thing in other words. That study admitted no association between exposure to ETS and lung cancer. No association. Also, it was disproved, as it was statistically insufficient. The campaign that has started globally on banning smoking from cafeterias and bars is wrong and if you are an American, unconstitutional. It's not a campaign to prevent harm, but to control behavior. I know smoking sucks for the smoker, and the smoke is a B word to smell, but that doesn't mean that you will force someone to stop it because you don't like it. As i mentioned, the next day you might not want to sit next to me in a cafe because i wear a blue shirt, or i have tattoos of dragons, or whatever. People can and should be insulted. Being insulted is a right. But you can't force someone to stop what they are doing, which has no real harm on you just because you don't like it. If i wore blue shirts and you were offended by them for any reason, can you ask me to take it off? No, nobody will stop you from walking out the cafe. I hate smoke too, but i live with it.
Second hand smoke is BS

Thank you for accepting this challenge. Let's have fun, shall we? All around the world, there are businesses being forced to prohibit smoking inside their own space, because some people say it is harmful for you, but they have no scientific evidence or explanation as to why that happens. It's a way to force people, in my opinion, to live by other people's standards, and that's completely wrong. Second hand smoke does not necessarily cause those deadly diseases people say it does. Therefor i think that banning smokers from clubs or Cafe's is BS.
for democracy

Even though you are con in this debate, judging by your 1st round argument, I would assume that you are for democracy and I am against democracy. Democracy is a very popular form of government throughout the course of history yet it is not always the most effective form of government. There are many problems face by the democratic system and I will first be pointing those problems out in my first round of the debate. First of all, the action of voting and acquiring the results of the voting is a very time consuming and inefficient process, the government often spend a long time simply trying to collect the votes and that often leads to a loss of important time when it comes to decision making. A well-known example would be United States presidential election in 2000 between Bush and Gore, where weeks were taking acquiring and analysing the votes simply to determine who won the election. Secondly, corruption is often a large problem in democratic systems. In countries with a large population, tallying and acquiring votes become more difficult and time consuming, and leads to an increase in the chance of voter fraud. A very recent example would be a case in Sandoval County, New Mexico, where a man name Eugene Victor first voted under his own name, and then waited until the next day to vote again under his son"s name without his son's permission. He would have gotten away with this if he didn't turn himself in afterwards, and this shows how easy it is for voting frauds to occur in a democratic system and ultimately leading to biased votes that could cause a lot problems. Thirdly, the voting public is often not aware of the full context of the voting/election and that could lead to the voters being easily influenced to cast a certain vote. Not just so, the increase in today's level of media saturation also causes the voters to face more influences around them that once again would lead to vote for a particular party under heavy influence instead of under their own will. Further points will be stated in my second round argument, Thank you.
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Let's just take the time to examine the Big Bang theory, for those of you who don't know it it's the concept that the universe began from a pinpoint and expanded from there. This could be recognized as scientific law, even for some Christians, but it doesn't mean that it can be possible that it happened "by itself". But there's no reason to make it so numerical in this debate. Now, some scientists say that it can be a possibility that the Big Bang was simply caused by nuclear fusion. This is probably the most likely explanation, but who/what could start the genesis of any scientific process? It would have to be a force, and some people like me willingly call it "God, Creator of the universe". He could have somehow caused the nuclear fusion itself which resulted in the Big Bang and the creation of each planet. It's even scientifically impossible for these molecules to somehow and for some reason bind or create without a force making them do so. Which brings me to one of the most basic scientific laws, the law of motion. This has nothing to do with motion, but it can be compared with any molecular activity. If we apply it to this case, it would say that nothing can even move or stop without a force making them do so. If that's true, then why would molecules just bind and create the universe for some reason? There has to be a force that puts everything into place to cause the Big Bang or create anything in this universe. I took a look at your sources, first of all I have a bit of a pet peeve with people posting the same website in two different links (1 and 2). The third one is just too complicated to even read, and I'm not sure if it even has anything to do with the Big Bang or creation theory. The fourth one is the closest source that can work but it seems to contradict itself when the author states in the beginning "I agree that the claim of a self-caused universe is incoherent" but then goes on to defend the idea of a self-caused universe. . http://www.deepastronomy.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave.The resolution of this debate states that 'Big Bang cosmology supporst atheism over theism.' I will be arguing that BB cosmology supports the conclusion that god does not exist. Con will be arguing that BB cosmology supports the conclusion that god does exist. The winner of the debate should be the person who elucidated their case more effectively, and responded to their opponents arguments with more skill.God is defined as the personal, rational agent that caused the initial state of the universe.General expectations of DDO conduct should be followed. Interactive sources like pictures and videos are encouraged. Pictures with text on them are fine if they are pictures of your sources. However, please do not type out your arguments, take a picture of it, and then post it on this debate.The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. For the second round, both sides will present their opening statement. For the third round, both sides will rebutt their opponents opening statement. The final round will be used for further debate and closing remarks.Vale.
It is Probable That God Does Not Exist

LACK OF EVIDENCE: This will no doubt be the shortest of my arguments. The idea is quite simply that at this point in time we have literally no empirical evidence for the existence of a god which created the universe. People often say that there is no conflict with the Bible and science, if there is a conflict I think this is it: being religious in unscientific because it assumes the existence of a being for which we have no evidence. Take the statement: 'There is no conflict between god and science. ' Now take this statement. 'There is no conflict between Santa Claus and science. ' These statements are equally true. In each case there is the fact that there is no literal conflict between science and the following, however that does not make the existence of the being true. The fact that there could be a Santa Claus, ie that a Santa Claus could be existent doesn't prove that there is a Santa Claus. The same with god. COSMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS: Let's now look at different ways in which the universe could be created without a god. There are several different possibilities which could explain the existence of the universe without the necessary inclusion of a god being. Quantum Fluctuations: The universe it seems could have been formed as a result of quantum fluctuations or the existence of tiny particles which can appear briefly or fluctuate out of nothingness. Some scientists think this could have been enough to trigger the Big Bang. The Quantum Fluctuation seems to make sense and it has been developed into several different cosmological models because of this as it allows the universe to get into a stable low energy state so that it can stop expanding. Once it's in the low energy state, it stays there, and we don't see other universes forming because any quantum fluctuations would put the universe into a higher energy state. The Quantum Fluctuation is a way in which theoretically we could create a universe without god. (1) . http://www.space.com... (2) . https://profmattstrassler.com... Hartle-Hawking state: Another theory in which god is not required is the Hartle–Hawking state which is a hypothesis which ignores the beginning of the universe, stating that before the Planck Epoch there existed no time (that is space-time becomes all space and no time), therefore constructing an mechanism behind the Big Bang would be a meaningless endeavour. (1) - . https://en.wikipedia.org... Mathematical Proof: There has now also been a mathematical proof that the universe could have spontaneously existed based upon solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation. See the paper below for more details: (1) - . https://arxiv.org... Conclusion:I have shown in this debate that there is no evidence for a deity and that the universe can and will create itself. The existence of a deity offers little explanatory value and is a claim for which there is literally no evidence.
Immigration from India to the U.S. should be encouraged

Thank you for the detailed response, it shows good commitment. I apologize for the late response, I was busy. Firstly, I will address the attacks on racism and then the attacks on the economy. Ok, first. You concede there are issues in the status quo, taking Con, that means you are ok with the issues of status quo and thus right away Pro seems better, as I want to fix those problems. On that note, you address racism, but you concede cards 3 and 4. Thus the Inherency is further proved, overall though, you fail to provide any substantial evidence, and talk a lot of "shouldawouldacoulda" you don't provide any cards to prove your claims. As a result, cards 3 and 4 stand, and prove my Inherency, so I win those as of now. Furthermore, If the voters give you those claims, I want to take a look at one of them, you say "Overall, when mass immigration occurs more negative interactions take place." Ok, so the status quo is limited immigration from all countries, again plan is only talking about Indians, and if the issues I described are ALREADY happening, that means that, with card 4 and my proven Inherency. Status quo, as I said in my first speech, is only going to continue a cycle of racism, as by doing nothing, not having interactions AT ALL, we aren't any closer to solving, with plan and Pro, we are. Next, the economy. You address it weakly, you concede immigration can help, but again, status quo is right now, the U.S. economy that is suffering, and as you only provide claims with no evidence to back up, I win that. You fail once again to attack cards 5, 6, 7 and 8. Thus the problems I described with those cards still exist. You argue that a weakened, low soft power future America is good, to be "taken over" by a country like China or India. Again the debate is over immigration to the U.S, not whether or not America losing control is good or bad. You argue the foreign scene is not important, and that we can focus on the domestic scene, but as I have proven, you are ok with the issues of the status quo, and if anything, plan is addressing the issues of racism, and the U.S. economy, both domestic issues that have evidence to back them up. TL;DR You say a lot of what we COULD do to fix the issue, you drop all of my cards and MOST importantly don't back up your claims with any cards and thus my cards win as you not only drop them but don't respond to them. I want to provide actual change. Thank you, I look forward to your response.
Immigration from India to the U.S. should be encouraged

Your definitions are fair and accurate and they are sufficient for clearly setting the parameters of this debate. Firstly, you need to explain how immigration from india will solve the economic problems of the USA. Furthermore, you need to explain the same for why this will reduce the amount of racism in the USA. One of the main causes of racism is a large influx of migrants in a short period of time. This leads to a feeling of a loss of control and negative associations with migrants taking away jobs, bringing down wages and taking houses etc. Finally, what specifically are the problems with the status quo on immigration in the USA and how will changing immigration rules help to solve the problem.
Immigration from India to the U.S. should be encouraged

Definitions 1. India, also called the Republic of India is a country in South Asia. 2. Immigration is the movement of people into a destination country which they are not natives of or where they do not possess citizenship in order to settle or reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens, or to take-up employment as a migrant worker or temporarily as a foreign worker. 3. Encourage, to help or stimulate (an activity, state, or view) to develop. There are current problems in the status quo with immigration, due to the current administration holding immigration down, racism is an issue in America, the economy is hurting and it needs to change. It can start with India.
The American invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable.

Thank you once again for your reply. I regret that I will not be able to debate with you fully because of your personal businesses. In rebuttal to your point that wars are bad...that is a generalization that is sometimes wrong. Was the war against Nazi Germany bad? Was it wrong to attack a nation that led horrific genocidal attacks against European Jews, the gypsies, and others. Was it wrong to fight for our belief that Nazi Germany's actions were wrong? Was it wrong to believe in our fight for democracy and anti-Communism in the world when Communist aggression in Vietnam and Korea threatened their southern democratic neighbors? No! These were not necessarily the right strategies to deal with these nations but that doesn't classify wars as "bad". Next, you state that wars kill innocent people. Sometimes it is necessary, as regretful as it is, to lose innocent people in times of war. But many times, these innocent people lost their lives in order for us to defeat a greater evil. The Afghan people, I regretfully must say, were a sacrifice for the downfall of the Taliban, thus innocent people were killed to destroy a greater power. Therefore, as I have refuted all your points and have successfully defended my points (much to my regret that this debate could not have been argued to the fullest), the American invasion of Afghanistan was, is, and will be justified. Thank you...and God Bless Us All...God Bless America. Good day/afternoon/evening/night
The American invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable.

I disagree with a lot of what you said but unfortunately am really busy right now and don't have time to pick your argument apart. So I will simply respond to your statement that the war in Afghanistan is justified because you have refuted my rebuttals. However, my rebuttals were simply responses to your argument, not my reasons why the invasion was not justified. THE INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE WAR IS WRONG AND KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE!
The American invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable.

Thank you for your reply First of all, in your rebuttal to my first point you replied that and I quote, "even if Afghanistan did harbor the criminals who committed the attacks, that does not justify attacking the whole country" However, if your neighbor kills a loved one and runs off to a friend's house to arrive...and the friend decides to help and hide the neighbor, wouldn't the police need to attack the neighbor's house in order to arrest your neighbor? Next, you comment that the United States treated the terrorist attacks as the beginning of a war instead of a criminal attack. However, these people represented a non-U.S. force. Therefore this is not merely a criminal attack , but a declaration of war. Although al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are not sovereign nations, the nation which shelters the group must be part of the attack itself. You also mention that there are other nations that harbor criminals that have committed acts against persons of our country. However, none of these criminals have committed and act of the 9/11 scale. Therefore, this point is irrelevant. As for the "if you're not with us you're against us" argument, if a nation is holding a terrorist group that is wanted by the United States, and is not willing to cooperate with the United States to either allow the United States to search the country or search the country themselves, wouldn't the United States be justified to attack? Let's go back to the neighbor killing your loved one scenario. When the neighbor runs to his friend's house and his friend agrees to protect him and refuses to help you, wouldn't your neighbor be guilty as well...even though he didn't commit the crime himself? Next, you point out that we put the Taliban into power in the first place. You are wrong because we merely gave arms to the Taliban to expel the Soviets and at no time did we endorse them. Anyways, this point is also irrelevant because there was no way to know whether or not the Taliban would be oppressive or not to its people when it governed, because at the time, it wasn't the governing body. For my third point, you mention that one evil person does not justify invading a country. Were we justified to attack Hitler, when he ruled Nazi Germany? Were we not justified to attack a nation led by a ruler so evil that he committed countless acts of genocide? Once again, however, the point is irrelevant. You mention that "even if [bin Laden justified the invasion of Afghanistan], it was not the correct strategy." However, this debate is not about whether or not the invasion of Afghanistan was the correct strategy, this debate is whether or not the invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. And because I have refuted or made your rebuttals irrelevant, the war in Afghanistan is justified. Thank you.
The American invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable.

Even if your point were true, we would not be justified in invading Afghanistan. War kills innocent people, not the people who we are truly against. However, even if you can justify war, especially offensive war, attacking Afghanistan is not justified. Your first point was that attacking Afghanistan was an act of self defense, because Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 attack. However, it was not the country of Afghanistan that committed the attacks, but individuals. The biggest mistake our administration made after September 11th was treating the terrorist attacks as the beginning of a war, or wars, rather than a criminal attack. And even if Afghanistan did harbor the criminals who committed the attacks, that does not justify attacking the whole country. Many other countries harbor criminals that committed crimes in the U.S., and we aren't attacking them. Granted, the 9/11 attacks are more than just any crime, but even so, it was individuals who committed them, not the country of Afghanistan. The war on Afghanistan is an example of the Bush administration's "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality. Blaming Afghanistan for the attacks is saying that since some people from Afghanistan committed them, the whole country is at fault, a clear logical fallacy. If an individual from a country commits a crime in, or even attacks, another country, does that justify declaring war on the entire country? Your second point was that the Afghani government was dangerous to us and oppressive to its own people. I don't disagree with this. However, you're forgetting that it was the United States who helped the Taliban to power in the first place. We can't put a government in power and then say, Okay, now that we're done fighting Communism, we don't like you anymore." I think your third point was that eradicating bin Laden justifies the invasion (if not, say so, it wasn't clear). As horrible as bin Laden is, one evil person does not justify invading an entire country. And even if it did, invading Afghanistan was not the correct strategy. I mean, we did invade Afghanistan, and we haven't caught bin Laden. On the other hand, had we had some CIA agents go to Afghanistan more surreptitiously, they most likely would have been able to find bin Laden, and without starting a war.
The American invasion of Afghanistan is justifiable.

I would also like to eventually thank any voters who vote for me in this debate. Now my points: 1) After the 9/11 attacks the U. S. was fully justified to attack Afghanistan because it was an act of self-defence. There was viable proof that Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 plot, therefore the attack was justified. 2) Besides harboring several terrorists, Afghanistan was ruled by a government that was radically dangerous to our own national security. The Taliban were known oppressors of their people and it was in our place to help them. 3) bin Laden is a necessary evil to eradicate that justifies the invasion. Therefore this war is justified. Thank you.