BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun control

Hmmm, it seems that you made an argument that didn't fall under the constraints of gun control via your definition which is, "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns". If the government in some way isn't apart of the selling of guns then by definition it is not gun control. This links back into my argument that people would be deterred from buying guns because the registration and other hassles would make it very unattractive. It is interesting that you used Australia as a gun control example for many reasons. First, according to people.duke.edu ," all criminologist studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nations collection of crime data, and their political, racial, ethnic, and economic disparities." So let us expose these differences in which make it impossible to compare. Australia has no direct neighboring countries so regulation of all legal gun distribution is much more feasible. The United States on the other hand has Mexico to the South and Canada to the north. For the government to see an actual effect of gun control in crime and suicide it would have to eliminate the illegal purchase of guns.Most criminals in the United States according to pbs.org get their guns from a person who acquired them legally. Which means they pay some one who, "looks the part" to go get a weapon for them. This shows that even with federal regulation in place today the ATF is virtually powerless to do anything about it.
Gun control

Thanks for accepting! Id like to begin the second round by stating pecan pie gun control is a positive thing. It would be positive because it would allow for murder and suicide rates to drop. In Australia, a country with strict gun control, found that when they made the switch to strict gun control, homicide fell by over 59%. For suicide, the result was even higher. Suicide dropped 79%. I, and many others would agree that the Australian government has done a very good job of 'tracking all the purchases and users'. You also said that government regulation would deter purchasing weapons, however it would only affect the weapons which are being controlled. The overall sales of weapons which are not regulated by the government would go through the roof. For a nation to prosper and develop, we must abstain from certain freedoms, which is why I believe that the government regulation of firearms in North America would be beneficial.
Gun control

Thank you for posting an argument as I love debate. Let me expose a couple of weaknesses in your argument. For 1 you have given no reason as why gun control would be good we can assume that you are trying to stop crime. The government trying to regulate the buying and selling of guns would one- deter a favorable market as people would be discouraged purchasing weapons much like voting, 2. It would be nearly impossible for the government to track all the purchases and users of guns. For gun control to be effective it would have to stop the illegal distribution of guns and that would be close to impossible for the gov because there would be such a large volume of physical and virtual area for it to cover. For these reasons I feel that gun control is obsolete and ineffective.
Gun control

While complete gun control would infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights, it should be acceptable for a higher body to regulate to purchase, sales, and ownership of certain types of weapons. To begin, I would like to define the word gun control as: "the regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns". -Merriam Webster Dictionary This is my first debate on this website, so please keep your argument sweet and to the point. I have previous knowledge of debate. Round 1: Opening argument Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Closing argument.
should students have to say the pledge in school

I'm a student and I've seen lots of students stand for the pledge, i only know one student who dose not say the pledge but he still stand up. It enrages me to see this as I believe that it should be an enforced rule to have to stand for the pledge. It's a very simple thing to do and shows a lot about your character and how you're seen as a person. It's just completely disrespectful and it shows how lazy and how much they are lacking in attitude and discipline! It also show they don't care about the country they live in, they may have hard times in the country but that should not be the hole reason. they should have a good reason for not standing for the pledge
Healthcare is a right.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, an endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People cannot live without healthcare, and people have the right to live therefore healthcare is a right. The first part can bee right if you say you are equal to the person next to you depending on hes statue in life, been able to look after him self. Liberty does not have anything to do whit Health care as fare as I know.It was not invented then back in 1800. The White House does not provide any Health care. You can get Food Stamp to live on, Health care is not free
Healthcare is a right.

This is my body. I have the right to my body. If I do not want to be sick or injured, I do not have to. It is wrong to force people to suffer. Yes or no: Do people own their bodies? We are talking about free Health care here. not what ewer you own your body, so I advice you to look into The Health care System where you are.Nobody have to suffer in this World, but illness is something you your self can or not control, all depends of the serverness of it
Burdens of proof are fallacies

My opponent brings up an important topic, if only due to the prolific use of these tactics. However, I disagree that the Burden of Proof is itself a fallacy. In some cases, burden of proof is applicable. In particular, resolution debates. Any debate in which something is asserted as true, the assertion is immediately put on trial. In such a case, the instigator is burdened to back their claims while the contender only need to cast enough reasonable doubt to render the claim invalid. If I walk into a room and declare that soylent green is made of people, it is my burden to prove that claim. The people in the room will demand evidence of my claim and, if the evidence is lacking, deem it inconclusive. The room is not burdened to disprove my assertions. It would be silly to expect me to enter the room, claim that soylent green is made of people, then demand the room to prove the opposite. In other cases, burden of proof is laid equally on both sides, usually in debates in the form of an interrogative. Consider a debate titled, "Should third trimester abortion be legalized?" Each side must convince the audience that their answer to the question is correct. Both sides have equal burden of proof. Certainly, it is always in the best interest of the contender to provide counter evidence whenever possible. This is simply best practice since anything one can use to strengthen their case should be employed. Even in a trial, the defendant should attempt to disprove the allegations and not simply content themselves with poking holes in the prosecutions case, even though they would be right in so doing. That being said, the burden of proof is a reality of debating. It will fall on one or both parties, never on neither. So, it is not a fallacy. At best, the only fallacy one could devise is the case in which the contender appeals to burden of proof without actually disproving the instigator. For example, I claim soylent green is made of people and provide evidence of my claim. It would be fallacious for the crowd in the room to say that I have the burden of undeniable proof, and since my proof is deniable, I have failed to meet my burden. This is a straw man fallacy, not a burden of proof fallacy. However, it would be perfectly reasonable for the room to convincingly show my arguments to be, for instance, non sequitar and an appeal to ignorance, and then say I have failed to logically meet my burden of proof--despite the fact that they have provided no counter evidence. At best, my opponent has exposed a rather overused straw man fallacy and in the process misrepresented the concept of burden of proof. Burden of proof is not a fallacy; it is within the very nature of debate. Indeed, without burden of proof on at least on side, debate would be meaningless. Negated.
Burdens of proof are fallacies

It strikes me as odd that arguers and debaters here like to throw around "burden of proof" as though it makes sense. "Its your burden", "you lose because you didnt satisfy the burden", "you placed the burden on the WRONG side". I assert that the Burden of Proof IS a fallacy. No, not placing it on the wrong side. Placing it anywhere! Many rhetoricians will admit that a lack of an argument doesnt constitute proof that your position is wrong. All scientists admit that a lack of proof doesnt constitute disproof or a proof to the contrary hypothesis. In no way does it constitute a loss to fail to meet any burden. Where that burden is placed is arbitrary and meaningless. People would argue that the burden is deserved somewhere on the sole basis of mainstream belief. That is illogical and fallacious. Anyone who states the burden is poorly placed is committing a fallacy of their own. My arguments, however lacking and deprived they may be, speaks for itself. If insufficient to sway, then so be it. Standby for further debate. If I fail, the worst consequence would be a tie... until YOU can prove your position. The "burden of proof" IS a fallacy. The entire belief that any ONE side possess more responsibility to prove their claim than the other is as fallacious as you can get. That is not objective nor is it an unbiased pursuit of truth. The Burden of Proof is a "get out of jail free" card designed by modern rhetoricians to break a stalemate, requiring no real argument or proof of their own. Their belief that their position is correct by "default", or that mine is false by default, because proof is lacking, is invalid thinking. Truly unbiased debates must concede that their opposition stands real chance of being correct... lack of proof constitutes only uncertainty, not conclusiveness. They would be hypocritical to fail to meet the same burden, to take the few minutes out to prove their position. It should be achievable if their position is more than just an empty belief. "My position is right by default until The Instigator can prove his argument conclusively" - on the basis that my position preexisted and has been established and accepted for far longer. That is what rhetoricians call an "Appeal to Tradition."
Resolved: in the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate

Framework Observation: It would be best to restrict the resolution tocases in which there is little to no suspicion on a member of the mafia. Thisis because in the vast majority of cases in which someone is resisting beingbussed, he or she is not likely to be caught otherwise/has not already beencaught. Since the resolution should focus on "on balance" scenarios, it is morefair for both sides to assume that the person would not be lynched anyways. Affirmative Case The crux of the affirmative case centers around the philosophyof utilitarianism. Utilitarianism stipulates that the most moral or justifiedoutcome is the one that favors the greatest number of people. Thus, my burdenin this round is to demonstrate that bussing an unwilling mafia buddy is a pooroutcome for the greatest number of people. First, bussing an unwilling teammate may lead one to bedeemed suspicious. The problem with bussing strategies is that they are so commonplacein Mafia games that it is essentially expected that the Mafia will bus ateammate in order to be confirmed at some point. In the Inheritance game, forexample, I was suspected of being mafia even after I vigkilled socialpinko, whohad been converted. In fact, some townies continued to accuse me of being mafiaeven AFTER I had vigkilled three mafia players, which indicates that bussinghas become very common in the DDO community. In fact, not only is bussingcommon, but it may also lead one to become suspicious. In the Illumnati game,for example, F_16 pretended that Andro had bussed him by cleverly devising astrategy by which he hammered on himself immediately after she voted to lynchhim. This caused Andro to be killed in the next round because everyone believedthat she had, in fact, bussed him to become confirmed. Second, bussing an unwilling teammate may cause resentmentand grudges. Since we are a relatively small community, most of the players ina given game are the same. Bussing an unwilling player can thus causeresentment and spoil games for the busser later on. For example, if the bussedplayer is ever mafia while the busser is town, the bussed player may advocatehaving the busser lynched in NP1. Grudges do exist in DDO Mafia. Socialpinko,for example, has killed F_16 consistently in three separate games: The No DayPhase game (as the vig even though there was a confirmed mafia player out) asmafia in Beginner 4.2 on Night Phase 1, and in the Tarantino game. Thus,ultimately bussing an unwilling player may be a poor choice from the standpointof the community. Finally, alternatives do exist. If the busser actuallybelieves that a bus is necessary, he could simply offer himself to be bussed byhis teammate. This could potentially get his teammate confirmed whilepermitting the team to win overall while avoiding the second negative impact. Thismeans that bussing an unwilling teammate is not the most effective option forwinning mafia games, so this still fills the teleological requirements ofutilitarianism. Thus, overall bussing is not the best solution possible, soyou should negate.
Resolved: in the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate

This debate is part of lannan's round-robin debate tournament. Definitions1. Mafia: a forum game in which an uninformed majority is pitted against an informed minority. The majority must weed out and eliminate the minority from the game, while the minority must attempt to gain equal numbers as the minority.2. justified (Merriam Webster Unabridged): to prove to be right or just3. bus: A mafia tactic in which a member of the informed minority initiates and pushes for a lynch of a teammate in order to be confirmed as a member of the town. Two quick observations/parameters1. In this debate, philosophy can and should be used.2. My opponent and I are most familiar with DDO Mafia, so we should argue this debate in the context of the DDO mafia community.
Rock Pets

I accept.I shall define some terms.Great (adjective): markedly superior in character or qualityhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...Pet (noun): any domesticated or tamed animal that is kept as a companion and cared for affectionately.http://dictionary.reference.com...Character (noun): moral or ethical qualityhttp://dictionary.reference.com...Rock (nout): Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone.http://dictionary.reference.com...____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Con claims that a rock is a "great pet". I will be arguing that rocks are not "great" and are not "pets">According to my definition of the word "great", something great must at least have character.>According to my definition of "character", something has character if it has morality or ethics. >According to my definition of "rock", rocks do not have morality or ethics.>Things that do not have morality or ethics are not great.>>Rocks are not great. >According to my definition of the word "pet", something must be an animal to be a pet.>According to my definition of the word "rock", rocks are not animals.>Things that are not animals are not pets.>>Rocks are not pets.
Rock Pets

Rocks make great pets and they are definitely better than having a cat. Rocks are so great because they will not urinate or defecate in your home or even outside. You could cuddle with a rock and won't have to worry about crushing it. You could also read out loud to a rock and it won't judge you for stuttering on words. Having a rock as a pet would be inexpensive whereas owning a cat, you would have to buy kitty litter, cat food, toys, food bowls, a bed that it might not even use, a collar, and a leash. Rocks do not eat or drink, they do not need leashes because they are not wild animals, they do not mark your home as their own territory, and the rock's only playmate is you. Therefore, everyone should have a lovely rock as a pet rather than buying an expensive cat.
Cloning

Welcome to DDO. I'll try to be nice.Quick Rebuttal:My opponent's argument for why cloning technology is not yet at the levels it needs to be is an example of a sheep that was cloned in 1996. [1] That's 21 years ago. So have we advanced in our technology? Almost certainly, but honestly I wouldn't know at the moment of writing this I haven't done the research yet.First a definition:To clone is to "propagate (an organism or cell) as a clone." [2]Basically it's just reproducing an organism or cell as an exact copy of another.Why cloning is good already:Cloning saves lives. More specifically, the cloning of embryonic cells for the purpose of harvesting stem cells saves lives. Stem cells are awesome, and everyone should have them, or you'd be dead. Stem cells are used by your body for repairing damaged tissue.In fact, stem cell research is attempting to cure certain conditions as "diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord injury." [3] All of this is made possible through cloning of individual cells.So cloning is awesome. Sources:[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(sheep)[2] google i don't know just google it if you don't believe me they didn't even cite it but wutevs dude [3] http://www.medicinenet.com...
Cloning

Since the art of cloning has not been mastered yet their is a big chance something can go wrong. Example "Dolly the sheep" started with deaths of numerous newborns One dolly came into being from 277 fused eggs, which itself indicates the grim success rate of the cloning process. It humans try it can come with uncontrollable results such as abnormal development, genetic damage, malformation and diseases in the clone We want to clone humans because we think they will live longer but the clones will have a shorter life span. Also genes may show up too late in a clone, and a whole line of people may get affected.
Soccer > Basketball

"Soccer is greater than basketball" is an extremely subjective statement. It is impossible to prove, unequivocally, beyond a reasonable doubt, that soccer is better than basketball. As you have the BoP, this is your duty. Meanwhile, my duty is to prove that basketball can be equal OR greater than soccer as a sport. If it can possibly be considered either of these two things, I win the debate. That being said, let's see why basketball can be better than soccer.1) There is more action in basketballA soccer match lasts 90 minutes per FIFA rules of play [1]. At average, in the duration of a match, roughly 3 goals total are scored [2]. This means that every half hour, a goal is scored, leaving the rest of the match to kicking around a soccer ball over an 130 yard field. An NBA basketball game lasts 48 minutes. The average score (for 2013-2014) was 101 points per game [3]. This comes out to 63.12 points every 30 minutes. Obviously there is more scoring, and more action in the NBA than in Major League Soccer federations. 2) Basketball caters more to fan entertainment than soccerFirst we must examine the nature of a professional sport. Why are athletes paid so much? Because they are entertainers. Who do they entertain? The fans, of course. Basketball leaves endless possibilities other than the actual game in which to enjoy the sport. The Harlem Globetrotters entertain people with their antics. The NBA All Star Weekend also offers plenty of ways in which to further enjoy the sport, which soccer does not, such as a slam dunk contest, a three-point shootout, a Celebrity game, and the Skills Challenge [4]. 3) Basketball is essential to the underprivileged African American way of life When you say soccer, and not futbol, I assume this debate is largely based in American ideals. Many young African Americans grow up in terrible, poor neighborhoods such as Detroit. With a lack of opportunities, they turn to basketball. Basketball is a way to dream, a way to hope, a way to pull themselves to something greater, a way to connect with people of their neighborhoods. This was epitomized in the movie "Hoop Dreams" [5]. 4) Even Elephants want to get in on basketball http://www.youtube.com... So, in conclusion, is basketball better than soccer? Maybe. That depends on your subjective reality. But the real question is, objectively, can a sport be measured as better than another? Probably not. As you can see, basketball has some very good qualities, even those that exceed soccer. But which qualities are more important? That's entirely subjective. These sports cannot be seen as anything but equal and different, objectively. Therefore, soccer is not better than basketball. The opposition will not be able to prove this unequivocally false. [1] http://www.fifa.com... [2] http://www.soccerbythenumbers.com... [3] http://www.basketball-reference.com... [4] http://www.nba.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... Good Luck!
I am much cooler then you

yes i want to do this i will break it down like this 1) You don't know 16 different people to be able to get 16 high fives from each. 2) Do you walk around shirtless all day because that is deemed uncool. 3) Facebook does not allow that many friends the cutoff is like 10 thousand 4) I clearly don't own a back. 5) i will see 6. 6) Damn now i gotta see 7. 7) well then you must be very old. 8) Were you the only one to vote? 9) My middle name of Fran is shortened from the word frantomincallyi which is greatest guy ever in juji. 10) I destroyed the Matrix 11) No Now my points! 1) I end everything with exclamation points and question marks!? 2) I can dunk a basketball ? 3) I am going to be Blown! 3a.) Multiple times 4) God has stated in the Bible that P-kens is cooler then K sex! 5) i can cook hamburger helper cause im a beast 6)I was born on the 69th day of the year 7) I am really really tall 8) You can't reach the top shelf 9) I've felt some really big boobies 10) Me and Jesus are best friends: one time we went to this daycare and during nap time we put all the kids hands in warm water and they all pissed themselves hahahahahahahahaha good times good times 11) 11 is before twelve which makes me cooler 12) I have won this debate
I am much cooler then you

Really? you want to do this? Trust me I'm way cooler than this guy for the following reasons: 1) I receive an average of 16 high-fives a day from 16 different people. 2) I have a tattoo on my back that clearly says "Your Looking At A Cool Kid's Back" 3) I have 93827584623576933759 Friends on facebook and 1000000004330930028875008254 friends on myspace. 4) You have a tattoo on your back that clearly says "Your looking at a lame kid's back" 5) (see number 6) 6) (see number 7) 7) My middle name is cool, and the reason people are referred to as "Cool", is because of me. 8) I was voted "Coolest person in the world" in 2008. 9) Your middle name is Fran, which is an absolutely meaningless name. 10) I invented The Matrix. 11) I just won this debate.