BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In the United States, private ownership of handguns/normal guns ought to be banned.

Since the BoP will be shared, I will allow us to have an equal amount of rounds and just use this one for acceptance.I think that for sake of clarity, we should formally define a Kritik. Jeff Miller wrote in an introductory publication for debate students, "The argument simply establishes that the fundamental assumptions made by the other team are false or irreversible. " This means there is an attacking of the other persons' fundamental assumptions within the round, whether that be capitalism or a gendered language representation.
The Election of Woodrow Wilson Marked the Shaping of The Modern Political Parties

Con, I am a bit bummed regarding your forfeit. Well, going against the volition to forfeit this round in order to render the debate evenly, I have decided to post exactly why Wilson was the first modern Democratic president, using both inductive and deductive method. I hope you will have the time to respond (I hope 24 hours is enough) and will use the added 4th round to strengthen yourself. Good luck. First, I will use deduction to show why no other presidents were the first modern Dems. Andrew Jackson: Ethnic cleansing, against gov. spending for advancement, states rights, Martin Van Buren: advocate of free trade, lower tarrifs (Wilson did too, but then enacted federal tax) James Knox Polk: Expansionist, nation building (Texas), "fifty-four fourty or fight" Franklin Pierce: Not much of anything, let alone a "modern" candidate James Buchanan: CERTAINLY not much of anything Grover Cleveland: Opposed subsidies, imperialist, against unions Woodrow Wilson: Covered later on... Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 2nd modern dem, not first due to those later down. Harry S. Truman: Nobody can be called the first modern dem after Wilson and Roosevelt John Fitzgerald Kennedy: " " Lyndon Baines Johnson: " " James Earl 'Jimmy' Carter: " " William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton: " " Now for why Wilson is the first modern Democratic Pres: -established income tax -progressive tax, corperations and rich paid 5% of income more than middle class -establish Federal Reserve to help keep loans low and help stuggling institutions -Appointed Louis Brandelis to supreme court. Probably most liberal appointee in history -Created workers compensation -Keating-Owen Act of 1916, labor rights for children and women -Regulated interstate commerce -supported federal tax money for legislating social change -Smith-Lever Act of 1914 funded statewide agricultural eduaction and subsidies -intellectual elitism (just for laughs) Sources: -American history: A survey By: Alan Brinkley (professor of U.S. history at Columbia -Clements, Kendrick A. The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1992) -wikipedia.org -democrats.org (which i used to match Wilson's policies with the moderns) Hope for your response quickly, good luck
The Election of Woodrow Wilson Marked the Shaping of The Modern Political Parties

Firstly, welcome to debate. org sir, and I wish you the best. I feel as though there is some mild confusion indeed. You stated that I'm stating that "Woodrow Wilson was the first ever modern democrat" and the biggest problem here is I am stating that Wilson was the first ever modern Democrat (with a capital D). I would agree with your analysis of Mr. Roosevelt as the founder of the "democratic" agenda, but Roosevelt was not a Democrat. I am stating that Wilson is the first president of any party to truly establish the status-quo for the party's future. "There are two main thrusts to my argument against. The first being that there were politicians before Wilson that established progressiveism and that there were elements of Wilson's character that seperated him from the modern democratic party. " Now, I would completely agree that there were politicians that established progressivism, but they were not Democrats. I would also like to make clear that we are talking about politicians that became president and president only. So my question to you is what Democratic presidents before Wilson had a progressive agenda? And I hope we're referring to progressive as in the party, no the word itself.
The Election of Woodrow Wilson Marked the Shaping of The Modern Political Parties

This is my first ever debate so please be gentle. If I am understanding your point correctly you are stating that Woodrow Wilson was the first ever modern democrat and that is the subject that we will be debating. There are two main thrusts to my argument against. The first being that there were politicians before Wilson that established progressiveism and that there were elements of Wilson's character that seperated him from the modern democratic party. I understand that you don't want this argument to center around Lincoln so I will make this comment brief, but as you yourself stated it could easily be argued that it was Lincoln that established progessivism on the national scale. My argument will focus on a politician much closer to the time period of Wilson, however, and that man is Theadore Roosevelt. I believe that it was Roosevelt that established the modern era of progessivism, which is the underpinning of Democratic positions and philosophies in the modern era. Roosevelt began the regulation of the business industry, he argued for the a thriving "middle class" and he believed that those not in power deserved in advocate and a fair deal. This are core principals of the modern progressive area and that is why I believe that it was Roosevelt and not Wilson that established the postions of the modern democratic party.
The Election of Woodrow Wilson Marked the Shaping of The Modern Political Parties

Much questioning goes into determining the origins of the modern U.S. political parties. For example, people say that Lincoln was the first Republican, but any examination of his policies would prove that he was what we would consider a modern liberal or at least a centrist with nationalist leanings (I would prefer that this did not become the main controversy). I would like to distinguish what I mean my "modern". I mean the principles which most resemble those of the "modern" (late 20th and 21st century) political ideologies. I here resolve, because of Republican William H. Taft's conservatism (following the progressive Republican agenda of Roosevelt), the Democratic party was forced to nominate a strong progressive candidate in the election of 1912, and in doing so they nominated Woodrow Wilson, the first modern Democrat.
Crowley could beat up castel

Sam and Dean would be a deffent problem for Crowley true. That is asuming Sam would take the chance of drinking demon blood agian. Sam and Dean did defeat all those creatures. You are right, but one at a time. Some times requiring the help of a certain demon, and when they fought lucifer they would have lost had god not brought back Castiel, who died when lucifer snapped his fingers. Dean was close to death and Castiel had to save him. On to the point if god. Yes god would be on there side. No he would not personaly fight. He would probly just bring them back after they died. And the question isn't could Crowley kill Castiel, but beat him. Crowely was afraid of the colt. But that was when he thought it was able to kill Lucifer. Sam and dean did defeat those things, but there is things that they couldn't beat. And there is a long line of "things" waiting to get back at him. In theory Lucifer could be let out of hell. This would also let Michelle back out as well, but I'm sure Michelle wouldn't to happy with those three. Back to the colt. It would be simple for Crowley to get the colt, and make someone unlock the gates of hell. The things and poeple in there are not to happy with Casteil and pals. Casteil has powers, but so does Crowley.
A believer in liberty should be against a Palestinian state

Unfortunately, Bias sourcing makes a solid refuting of your claims some what hard. You have chosen not to refute the historical evidence I have presented at the end the the last round but still labeled it as "propaganda" even though it is sourced to openly known and reasonably reliable sources. Palestine and Israel have internal conflicts that really only concern Israel and Palestine. It isn't practical nor legitimate to tie Palestine to larger issues with religious extremism. Israel has its own justifications for doing what its doing... as does Palestine. The nature of who is right and who is wrong is not really relevant to the initial contention which is that believe in liberty constitutes an obligation to be actively-against the state of Palestine. Neutrality is most liberty loving stance to take, liberty is a selfish thing. It is selfish to believe in liberty and it is Selfish to possess it. To hold so dear your own liberties that you will protect liberty-by not getting involved in the age old struggles of others. Israel and Palestine,have bad blood that goes back a very long time. It is not anyone's place to get involved. If anything I have proven to you that the history shows Foreign involvement has ended for the worst, each time.
A believer in liberty should be against a Palestinian state

From the opening of your debate, in the very title, you started off by inferring ( but not directly engaging) in a No true Scotsman fallacy. That said, liberty by its virtue and its definition extend beyond a couple of paragraphs in the United States constitution. By definition : lib·er·ty noun\G2;li-bər-tē\ : the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely : the power to do or choose what you want to : a political rightThus we run into the second problem with your arguments premise... they " Don't tell me what to do with my liberty." So to be a believer in liberty, means there are no preconditions. As a believer in liberty, the right to self determination is key and while we shouldn't support states that have such outrageous policies, neither do we have grounds to be-or act against a people who have chosen a path of self determination and that means the most liberty-loving thing you can so is none-intervention. None-intervention for the sake of our liberty as much as anything or anyone Else's because nothing but loss of life and and liberty comes from the use of force. On what basis is force justified? if Palestine prosecutes the Jews is it right to sacrifice liberty on the pretext of liberty? Which brings us to the third flaw in your opening debate. It's all conjecture. You'll have to show me the institutionalized prosecution by Palestine before we can go much further down this line. How ever even if palestine does these things, I believe you will have a tough time selling the motion that we should be actively against palestine.
A believer in liberty should be against a Palestinian state

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" so begins the second paragraph of the declaration of independence thereby explaining what the basis of the new entity is, in their words "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation". My understanding of this is that the foundation of a society of liberty and democracy is the belief that all men are created equal and therefore the individual should never be stomp't on (persecuted) never quieted (freedom of expression).And only with such a foundation can liberty last. I am sure that most people when asked whether a country that has in its laws that someone who sells a house to a black should be executed and that one who kills blacks will not be punished by a court of law can be considered a democratic country would say absolutely not. Such a country does not even accept the premise of all men being equal before g-d. (Don"t ask if so how did America have slavery i do indeed think it was an inherent contradiction from day one, the salient point here is what you think the basis of liberty is i.e. what belief system ensures that the individual is respected even when the majority holds different.) Applying it to our scenario the Palestinian Arabs clearly state their intentions of not allowing a single Jew to live in their state. In fact there's an interesting point people seem to totally skim over as if it"s nothing why is Israeli settlements such a big deal to the palistinians,why not just make your state with a quarter to a half a million Jews in it, Israel proper has over a million Israeli Arabs why is it so obvious to both sides that the Jews have to be expelled from their homes (many of them living there from the 1970s).The answer is clear, and of this there is no dispute any Jews left under the mercy of Palestinians will be summarily executed or expelled (the former being just as likely as the latter).The palistinian authority today has a law with the death penalty for selling property to a Jew. So all you have to do is substitute the word black for Jew and you have your answer such a society would not be one of liberty and justice and therefore it is not in the interest of the free world the establishment of this state. How much more so if in the scenario i gave above the ones who are expected to be the ones to create this state are blacks how absurd is that notion, how outrageous, similarly honestly how excited do you expect Israelis to be at the thought of a Palestinian state. There"s much more to discuss about how the Palestinian state would not be one of liberty but for now i await a response.
Bill Gate give the people back what wasn't your's to begin with and step down.

Stephen Gary Wozniak must have been paid out pretty well by Mr Bill Poindexter Gates to leave Mr Mac Apple. Or maybe a fallout. I suppose that's all confidential. Well, the x button is what we are hoping for and maybe Mr Bill Poindexter Gates might just take what is good out of Windows 10 like what happened with Vista to Windows 7 and make Windows Liberty and give us back our freedom from the tyranny of the governing forces that let whatever search engine that we use. Sell the habits of the internet world to the highest bidder. Internet Explorer was just fine. My oh, my C/ to a C\ what a shame that's all it took to get past the patient that Dobsey had already in place well money is the root of all evil and to have no more then you need is a blessing in disguise. You sold out Dobs Bill please we beg of you don't sell out, us of humanities humane to the tyranny of the governing rule. This is all we have to left. Absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corporate media is not just fake news it's called the gutter press. Why people believe it, will they ever learn?
Bill Gate give the people back what wasn't your's to begin with and step down.

2 hands but 10 digits maybe if we start counting our feet and digits that might just help within the Quarks gluons. Then it's butt 2 windows 1+1= windows 1+1+1+1= two windows. So 20 digits = a walkthrough mirror of a world that gluons mix with the nature of quarks and Nature is Good. Where is that flighting purple elephant with pink polka-dots maybe it ran off with that purple polka-dotted flying pink pig? Oh, yer I forgot to count on our hands and feet as well. Uuuummmm!crackle!pop!biz!bang!Shampoozel. Click.101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010110010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010 wow I'm getting dizzy dixie. How about 24 reflections within the mirror. My eyes are failing I need thicker glasses where is Poindexter when you need him? Stupid cats and dogs maybe they're, not so stupid after all.
Bill Gate give the people back what wasn't your's to begin with and step down.

Oh well if your happy with that trade-off then who I'm I to argue? Rude as the brass in my birthday suit Grand McDaddyoe. Is my bitch is with; this bus song? Oh where oh, where has my little dog gone? We lost it with windows 10. Oh, where, oh where can it be? Windows XP and 7 were just fine. With his ears cut short and his tail cut long. Our calls for mercy have fallen on deaf ears. Oh, where, oh where can he be? It hid behind trillions of bones and has the governments on side. Tyranny is at hand for windows 10 has failed us all. We may as well whistle Dixie. Here Dixie here boy. Toot, toot, toot. Maybe docking, his tale might help.
Bill Gate give the people back what wasn't your's to begin with and step down.

JaredFogle the 28-year-old garage nerd. Well, thank you for showing up and at least getting some recognition for your works. And thank you from us all that know the truth about Bill f#cking Gates. I was sorry to see Mr Mac Apple leave us so early. But hey Nature is a strange game is it not? Love from all that still fight for our freedom from tyranny as absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Peace be with you, absolutely.
Bill Gate give the people back what wasn't your's to begin with and step down.

The man that stole the GUI interface and made it his by just changing C/ to C\ and he gets all the credit and fame and money and stands up as the man but is no more than a dirtbag. Give what wasn't your's "as you stole it from the garage nerds that you never gave a cent to or even acknowledged there own selfless act" to begin with back to the people where it belongs. Windows 10 is an act of communism that the original inventor never intended it to be as it has become. It was a gift to the people of the world to stop the governing bodies from having all power as power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are losing that right. Right in front of our own eyes. With, https://www.theregister.co.uk... https://www.theguardian.com... Corporate suicide is what it will take to end this. Linux may be the only answer left. F#ckoff Windows.
Revelation Was Written Before A.D 70.

Proposed Debate Outline:After discussion between the two of us it was agreed we do not need more than eight lines of argumentation each to state our case. The burden of proof is shared. We are each required to respond to the others arguments. Agreed by both that there will be no limit to the amount of source quotes.Round 1: Terms and AcceptanceRound 2: Opening statements - 4-5 lines of argumentationRound 3: Refutation plus 3-2 lines of argumentationRound 4: Refutation plus one additional line of argumentation if requiredRound 5: Closing argument and final refutations. No new argumentsI await Skepticalone to accept these conditions.
gas prices

While my opponent is Con for gas prices, their argument is basically Pro for gas prices should be lowered. As such, I am opposed to this (for this debate) and will be arguing that gas prices should not be forcibly changed and should go whichever way the market dictates, up or down. I will also present a second, entirely separate line of reasoning that gas prices should be raised in order to steer the automotive industry towards more eco-friendly vehicles (such as hybrids and alternative energy). Since this debate is only 3 rounds, and my opponent already kind of posted an argument, I will start my arguments in this round. Again, I would like to say that these two arguments are entire separate (since they go against each other, yet both go against my opponent). ==Pro's Case== 1) Gas prices should be left to the market, as this is the most efficient method [1]. As supply and demand change, so will the prices. There is a natural annual cycle that the price of gas goes through [2]. This means that we will see some increase and some decreases from month to month. However, what we will also find, is that as we consume more oil, we have to drill in more and more challenging, and as such, more expensive locations. It is only logical that our first drillings, were done in the cheapest, most cost effective places. This the basic principle of diminishing returns, the first runs are the most valuable (in terms of profit) and we slowly go more and more expensive and less profitable. As we drill those more expensive wells and locations, that added costs will make the fuel cost more. This is the way the market works. And this is perfectly fine, because another way the market works, is that once a better, more cost effective means comes along (once alternative fuels are cost effective), they will replace the old versions, just like Blueray is replacing DVDs, which replaced VHS, which replaced the Opera (does anyone still go to those?). It is also the natural cycle of how the market evolves and gives us the most advanced technology possible. 2) The burning of fuel in our cars in a major contributor to greenhouse gas pollution, currently making up about 33.2% of our national CO2 release [3]. If my opponent needs, I can go into why this is a bad thing in the next round. By raising the price of gas (ideally through and additional tax), this will push demand away from this power source and towards others. By shifting demand, it shifts private section investments and so increases technological advancements within those areas. We can also take the revenue raised from those taxes and apply those to subsidize those areas, or for other needs, like lube for lobbyists. I will leave this at this and let my opponent respond before going any further in. Thank you [1] http://strategytank.awardspace.com... [2] http://inflationdata.com... [3] http://www.eia.gov...
gas prices

the gas prices today are now way over the limit. did you know that the gas used to cost 99 cent. I wish the gas can be like that again, but we need to protest to someone that we need to lower the current gas prices. I don't know about you but I have to say that as they raised these gas prices, people have only filled the tank half way and not full and that has caused people to run out of gas and not be able to go some where any longer. they will have to call someone to go get them. if I haven't said already the GAS PRICES need to be LOWERD NOT HIGHER. thank you for your time.......wait I have a challenge for you go out and write a potition and see who wants to lower gas and who just disagrees. I dare you. and then report it to me if you have that is soooo my debate if you think different hit me up with a argument on why they need to stay the same or get higher. thanks for your time and I dare you to do that potition!
Trump Is Not A Racist/Sexist

It's clear that you don't understand what the term "saving face" mean. If you did, Then you'd know that politicians do favors for people all the time. Its only done to make themselves look better to the general public. It's also called "protecting your business interests. " 1. Proof of Trump's racism include racial discrimination against Black people in which he wouldn't allow them to rent an apartment in his building. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against him in 1973. The Justice Department filed another lawsuit against Trump again just a few years later & for the exact same reason. Https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . . . . 2. In 1992, The New Jersey Casino Commission fined Trump for removing Black card dealers when big spenders came to gamble. . . 3. The Central Park Five is when five black teens were falsely accused of rape & spent years in prison. After being exonerated on all charges, Trump verbally attacked the guys even though the evidence proved their innocence. 4. He refuses to condemn the white supremacists who campaign & hold violent rallies for him. . . Case in point: Charlottesville. 5. Trumps father was a stone-cold racist & his sons have attended KKK rallies. Source:"Hidden Colors Documentary. " You said that Trump's wife isn't white? Need I say more? Mexico is a country & Muslim is a religion. Sexist comments? You may want to watch how Trump interacts with female reporters. . . It's so out of hand that Alec Baldwin constantly makes fun of him on "Saturday Night Live. "