BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

My opponent is arguing that gun control is a necessity, meaning it is required because of the orlando shooting. So if we can exist at all without it, then it would not be considered a necessity, also regarding whether discussing has to be proven a necessity. This burden of proof all lies on pro. Next my opponent says that just praying isn't enough, that's not all that we are doing. We are teaching people about safety, and other methods. We are instilling things and discussing things which can help stop gun violence without having gun control. Now, I would ask my opponent if he wants to ban assault rifles, then why not ban all guns? By your logic if the thing that kills a lot of people should not be allowed no matter what at the expense of lives, then handguns should have been on your list of what you wanted to ban before assault rifles. "It turns out that big, scary military rifles don"t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do. In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows" http://www.nytimes.com...
praying should be aloud in school

I do believe that you meant to say "allowed" not "aloud," but I'll debate both points seeing as the debate is only one round long. Praying should be allowed:It is allowed, as I said in the comments. It's illegal, in the United States at least, to prevent students from praying to any god inside public schools [1]. There goes that point: there's nothing to debate.Praying should be aloud: "Now a day fights are happening more"I would argue the exact opposite. Although could not find a reputable source on the issue, it only makes sense that sense that physical bulling and "fights" are getting less prevalent as schools continue to tighten their enforcement for such actions and crack down with harsher punishment. As an alternative, as we move into the 21st century, potential "fighters" have the option of using the internet as a medium to convey aggression: easy and near impossible to enforce. This argument is based upon a false premise, but even if the premise was sound, the point would not be.Prayer is defined as communication with a divine being. The only way that prayer would be "allowed" would be if students were forced to pray in unison. In being forced to pray, no connection is made with God and thus the prayer is empty. An empty prayer will do no more than no prayer to open one's spirit to be "touched" by God.Because this was a one- round debate, I've been forced to bring up new points. I assume that Pro was aware of the inevitability of this when he made this a "shot" (short) debate.Vote Con! http://www.archives.gov...;
Essentially, human beings must pay to live and humans are the only ones who have to pay

Yeah man! You feel like an idiot and you regret about starting this unclear debate (and not giving me the clarifications I asked for).. You say that you tried to play it off as if you knew what you were doing and talking about.. you admit all that but you still ARGUING!!! You mention the same arguments for the third time and in the end you sat that you was vague and you look like an idiot.. But if you thought that your arguments were useless why did you argue too in the 4rth round?? I mean, it doesn't make sense at all... So, I will rebut your arguments, too...Let's start!: "Most people that are a part of the modern industrialized world need a house, electricity, water, and heat to live off of. All of those services are not free in the modern industrialized world." OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT FREE!! who would provide you with electricity, oxygenated water and heat for free? Who would build your house for free? In order these things to be available for you, we need some people to work. Would you work for free? NO!! and no one would do that! " we can go chop down firewood to make heat, but firewood isn't free. You still have to pay to go get it. " The same things again and again! I explained in round 3 why this happens and if you want you can travel to an uncivilized place either to live or just to chop down some firewood and then you can come back! "but see money is not powerful. A piece of paper with numbers in the corner are powerless. Something is only as powerful as one makes it out to be." Yes, I agree with you.. Something is as powerful as one makes it out to be.. The point is that WE HAVE MADE MONEY POWERFUL!! I think that I have analyzed and explained this too much! Just read the previous rounds...
Essentially, human beings must pay to live and humans are the only ones who have to pay

No one should build a home for free. Correct! But, the fact that something that is required for living is a charge that we have to pay. Most people that are a part of the modern industrialized world need a house, electricity, water, and heat to live off of. All of those services are not free in the modern industrialized world. Well, we can get our own water by going to a lake 5 miles away everyday, and we can go chop down firewood to make heat, but firewood isn't free. You still have to pay to go get it. Yeah, we should only get out of life what we put in to it, but see money is not powerful. A piece of paper with numbers in the corner are powerless. Something is only as powerful as one makes it out to be. I think I was very unclear. I didn't make much sense when I started this debate at 3:00AM. I look like an idiot, and I feel like an idiot, and I tried to play it off as if I knew what I was doing. I apologize for the time I wasted. I feel pretty stupid. Thanks for putting up with me, all
Essentially, human beings must pay to live and humans are the only ones who have to pay

Dear pro, you have not realized something really important: "Well if socialism is that man comes before money and not money before man, then yes, I am implying socialism. " Money is not a bad thing but something that make us powerful. And this is what all the beings try to become. All the animals want to become powerful. And this is why people focus on money. If potatoes(for example) made people powerful then everyone would try to have as many potatoes as possible. Everyone would be obsessed in making money. This is not about money itself but human's nature. Even if we abolish money then we will dedicate ourselves to something else that will make us powerful. And this is why money comes first and the human beings in general second. Because first, we have to think about ourselves and make our desires come true in order to be satisfied with ourselves and then we will think about all the people on earth. This is something physical and it is not a bad thing.The human nature make us want to become powerful and this is something all people want to do( some want it more while some others less) and it is a physical need. \1;t is neither selfishness nor greed.. It is 100% physical and moral. "I want to live among civilized beings who value a human life more than they value a dollar" this is impossible to happen just because people should care more for themselves and not for the others. If we care for the others first then we won't get evolved as we will think about other's desires than ours. "What I am saying is this is not an example of advanced beings" [...] " If someone needs to think that the number of lives lost is or isn't worth saving, then we are not advanced." This opinion is 100% wrong. In fact,the greed and our evolved brain is what made as advanced. Our desire to become powerful has made us try to find different ways to benefit. And this way we invented treatments for diseases, we have developed technologically, discover the world and gain knowledge etc. Human greed is an indication for a civilization that has possibilities to develop.
Essentially, human beings must pay to live and humans are the only ones who have to pay

What I am saying is this is not an example of advanced beings. Advanced beings wouldn't leave their own out to dry. The fact that not a single movement in this country is done without exchanging hands is sick. We are the only beings charged with having to live. Two jobs and I'm still not able to make it in my own? What's wrong with this image? The fact that someone is not getting out what they are putting in. But forget this. All emotional ties don't matter in debates Humans pay for mobilization and living. Humans pay for plots of land with no life on them. I do not want to go live in the wild. I want to live among civilized beings who value a human life more than they value a dollar. We send our children off to die for monetary reasons. Sure, terrorism and the spread of democracy were reasons, but if money couldn't be made, then we wouldn't go. GMC recalled a vehicle that were having issues that essentially caused deadly crashes. They knew of said problem for while before recalling. Why? Because they do an evaluation of lives lost versus money lost. If someone needs to think that the number of lives lost is or isn't worth saving, then we are not advanced. Am I implying socialism? Well if socialism is that man comes before money and not money before man, then yes, I am implying socialism. I do not see a flaw in the idea that the dollar can never hold a value to a life, and a happy civilized life.
Essentially, human beings must pay to live and humans are the only ones who have to pay

Even when you go site seeing. You still get a hotel room. You have to shop for a hotel room. Nothing in this country is free. And we're the only species on the planet that has to pay to live. You have to pay for a house to be built, you have to pay for the land you're using, the food you eat, the bed you lay on, and the way you move. Even hunting has to be paid for. You have to obtain a hunting license to hunt and to do that you have to buy it. You wanna travel to another state? Pay a toll by car or for a ticket by plane or train. You wanna leave this country? Need to pay on your way out. Not a god damn thing moves without money exchanging in this place. In order to be considered an active member of society, you must have a job or you must be a student... that is paying to go to school. When it comes to medicine, if we go straight to the plant that produces the drug, then we can be locked up or fined (marijuana), but if you buy it from a pharmaceutical, then it's okay. Human beings are more evolved than they believe, but human beings have not taking advantage of their evolution. We are not superior to animals, because we charge ourselves to stay alive. Animals do not charge dollars, cents, and labor to it's own kind in order to live. If they can build it, catch it, and run for it, then they can sleep in it, eat it, and live on. We have to pay for the land we use and the materials we take. Go in to the forest and cut down a tree without paying the people that own the forest. Everything in this country is owned, so everyone has to pay for everything.
Child Pornography should be legal if a child wants to be in the Porn industry

As my opponent initiated the debate, I feel it is only fair that their points and arguments be asserted first, but I digress.Since my opponent also did not define what they meant by a "child," I will provide my own definition for the sake of the argument. In saying "child," I will be referring to a minor between the ages of 13 and 17. Anything younger than that is in no way morally justifiable--in fact, it is completely sick and very nearly pedophilia.When I was 16, I wanted to have my own hookah lounge, but I was only 16, and smoking is illegal until the age of 18. No one was going to take my hand and say, "Go ahead, sweetheart--you can't legally smoke, but you may as well start, since you want to have your own hookah lounge when you grow up." The logic in this school of thought is intrinsically flawed. If you wanted to be a police officer when you grew up, no one was going to hand you a uniform, a badge, and a handgun and tell you to have at it.Children are notorious for changing their minds in regards to what career they would like to pursue. One day they want to be a veterinarian, the next they want to be a mortician, and by Sunday, they're contemplating teaching English as a second language in Serbia. Let's say that a fifteen-year-old girl decided she wanted to be in the porn industry, and subsequently gets involved, making several videos, taking several raunchy pictures, and whatnot. But, next year, said girl decides she wants to be a trauma surgeon. Very few colleges would want to accept her, and even fewer medical schools. And, even if she beat the odds there, what hospital is going to hire an former child porn star? A child getting involved in the pornography industry may jeopardize any future career opportunities they would like to take.Finally, is this really right? Is this really justifiable? Is it morally acceptable to exploit young men and women in such a degrading and objectifying fashion? The answer is a resounding no.
Abortion

Yes, adoption is a good option, but there are some people, where that is too much of a dangerous option, and abortion is about the only option for them. There are other reasons someone might need to get an abortion besides the ones listed before. Such as, the child inside them is already unhealthy and there is much of a chance it will become still born, so abortion is a better option than having to go through child birth to see their dead child. That scenario has occurred. Would you want to take the chance of giving birth to a baby you can't watch grow up? No, and in that case, abortion is tough but it is the better option. You say that killing the baby will have negative affects on them, and though that is true, child birth will have more harmful affects on their body. All the things adult women go through when they give child birth, will go through the young teen, but will seem much worse because of the age. Also, it may give them moral discomfort if they abort the baby, and they may regret it, but regret will fade over time, and their life could go back to close to normal, especially with the proper help. Though if they gave child birth, their body would go through affects harder to reverse and they will always remember how much pain they went through with their pregnancy. I thank you con for your time.
Abortion

Adoption can be very complicated but the point of that is only to ensure that the child goes to well-fit parents. I have seen adoption first hand. In fact, I myself am adopted and I feel so incredibly loved by my adopted parents. My birth mother could not support me because her and her boyfriend did not have the jobs to raise a child. But rather to kill me, my birth mother chose life for me and I will never be able to repay that debt. There are so many people who would love children but cannot have them. If you do not want or cannot afford a child, thousands of these parents would jump at the chance to take yours. As for the 13 year olds, they would go through far more horrors in killing a child. I applaud teenage mothers who have let their child live, no matter if they raised them or gave them up, they let them live. I also applaud the thousands upon thousands of women that were raped and went through with your pregnancy. Thank you for your love and courage. http://conservativereport.org...
Abortion

You have said many thirteen year olds have had babies and survived. They may have survived, but after that child birth, nothing would be the same for them. There is a great chance of that baby harming them while they are giving birth, or simply carrying it. Physical therapy, might not be enough. I also think abortion is okay because adoption is a complicated system. Though people who just don't want to have their baby, would be wiser to put it up for adoption, that shouldn't be the only option, for those who can't help it.
Abortion

I agree that when two lives can be harmed in the case of childbirth, it is better to save one of the lives rather than letting them both die. But unfortunately statistics show that that is hardly ever the case for an abortion. I also completely agree with you that rape is absolutely disgusting but once again, statistics show that less than 1% of American abortions are from rape victims. Personally if I was raped and got pregnant I would not want the child to suffer from his/her father's horrible actions. A 13 year old that has been raped and got pregnant is a touchy subject but many 13 year olds have had children before and have survived it. Adoption is the best choice for a rape victim and with proper therapy and medical help, I believe no baby should have to suffer those consequences.
Abortion

I can see what you are saying, but there are instances when abortion is really the only option. Take this for example. A woman is going to have a baby, and she was ready to care for it. But something goes wrong, and if she doesn't get the baby aborted, they will both die. In this case, abortion is the better option and even though it is killing the life of a soon-to-be baby, it is also saving the life of the mother. This has taken place multiple times, and without abortion, many more woman could die. Also, what if the sex wasn't their choice? What if a 13 year old girl who had already had her period got raped and got pregnant? Do you expect her to carry the child when she is not mentally ready to care for it, and even though it is possible for her to get pregnant, she isn't fully, physically ready to handle a child either? You could say she could have the baby and let her parents raise it, but a girl of young age giving birth to a child is very dangerous. It is always painful, but with a girl that young, there are more risks. So, I do agree with people using abortion as simple birth control is wrong, but abortion is not always wrong. People misuse it. All in all, it may kill a fetus, but it was intended to help the person carrying the child.
Abortion

Abortion. When one hears that word, what do they think? When I hear it, I think of my baby nephew. He is such a pure and wonderful addition to my world. The thought of anyone hurting him, let alone killing him, makes me want to punch a hole through my wall. You all believe that a woman has a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because you believe that the "fetus" inside of her is not a human. I have news for you, it most certainly is a human. Even if you were correct, would the fetus grow into a dog? Or perhaps a parrot? No. When a fetus is given a chance, it becomes a beautiful baby and so on and so forth. I am a woman. I completely understand that women should be able to decide for themselves when it comes to their body, but I am sorry we are not talking about the mother, we are talking about the innocent life that is stirring inside of her. Now we can argue on and on and on about how women aren't ready for children and the child should not be born into this burden of immature parents that cannot provide for them. I agree. These poor children. But for some reason I feel like you guys must have missed out on your biology classes in high school because SEX BRINGS BABIES. And if you are not ready for babies, DON'T HAVE SEX. Sex was made for one and only one task, reproduction and so many people take advantage of that and go out for one night stands and the girl gets pregnant. I don't care how drunk you were, it was your mistake and your child should not by any means have to suffer because of it. Even if you believe you don't have the means to provide for this child, there are thousands upon thousands of parents who aren't as lucky as you to be able to bear a child and they would most certainly adopt yours. Adoption is an absolute beautiful thing that I have seen first hand. Please, choose life. Choose an innocent baby's life http://www.photoinpixel.com...
Music Competition Debate

This debate should be impossible to accept. If anyone finds a way to accept this debate without my permission they will therefore forfeit the debate and all 7 points will go to me.This debate is.... DADADA! A Musical competition!Here are the rules:1. First round is for acceptance.2. Each round we will post a video of us playing a song.3. The song can either be an actual song, or be one you created.4. Playing an instrument in the video is required, singing in addition to playing is optional. Any instrument may be used, and any song may be played.Voting RulesThese rules will set the standards for all voting. Any votes that do not adhere to these standards will be removed.1. Source points will go to whoever sounded better. Do not take the music itself into question, rather how well they played the song. For example, if you hate heavy metal and someone plays heavy metal, do not take away arguments points from them just because the type of music they played is music you don't like. Judge them off how well they performed the song2. Arguments points go to song difficulty. Whoever all-together played more difficult songs will win this point. Singing should be taken into context when awarding this point.3. No other points will be rewarded for any reason. Any vote that adds points outside of the listed voting points will be removed.If there are any questions or concerns about these rules please post them in the comments section.Post in the comments section if you would like to take this debate.
The Big Bangg Theory

Since my opponent didn't make clear what it is they're defending, I will make two arguments against what I believe their case to be. 1. The BBT is an attempt to describe the origin of the universe and doesn't require a god. The BBT states that the universe came into being as the rapid expansion of a singularity created time, space, and matter. The universe as we know it, about 13.7 billion years ago. There are 3 major evidences for the Big Bang. 1a) The expansion of the universe. 1b) Hubble's Law -1ba) Velocity is directly proportionate to distance 1c) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. I would ask my opponent, where is a god in this? also, The term "Big Bang" wasn't coined until the 1950's. 2. God doesn't solve anything. By saying that god must have done it, then you raise more questions than you answer. Who created god? Where did god get the material to create the big bang? And finally, Where did god exist before the Big bang. I look forward to my opponent's argument/rebuttal.
The Big Bangg Theory

In the beginning God said there would be light, and so it was. Along with this, in a scientific terms all scientists did, was put this into the prospective as their terms. In a flash of light, the world was created out of nothing, the same way that both Scientology and the Christian religion prospects. This debate is not to say that there happens to be god, no, not at all. I believe in god, but maybe scientists just put their terms into the description. Do you believe that scientists did not put the Christianity context in their theories?
This site is composed entirely of juvenile delinquents except for InfraRedEd.

My opponent is confused as to who is arguing what. I am Con. She is Pro. Actually as she has pointed out it doesn't matter what is said because the purpose of the debate is to win. This is accomplished by votebombing, not by arguments. She is not even very good at that. http://www.debate.org... holds the votebombing recored. Can she beat her previous record against me?
This site is composed entirely of juvenile delinquents except for InfraRedEd.

Damn. I thought I was actually going to have to defend myself, as my argument(s) are hardly very strong. I guess, however, it is better to have a weak argument than absolutely no argument at all. In that case, my points still stand we should probably just get this debate over with asap, Con, so we can all move on with our lives (however pathetic yours might be).