BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Bans

Devils advocate. Its not as fun if your not truly against the right to bear arms. Anyways here we go. First off my argument is for the country of America. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That gives the right of American citizens to be able to bear arms without the government taking away that right. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... The typical argument against "The right to bear arms" is that guns kill people. My argument is that guns don't kill people. Murderers kill people. Just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't mean we can shoot people or infringe on other peoples private property. As individuals we are given "life and liberty" as long as we don't take away other peoples life and/or liberty. If a criminal wants a gun, he will get it. Regardless of what the law says. If the law is changed so that guns are outlawed, most likely the law abiding citizens won't have guns, but the criminals still will. So that would put those citizens in worse danger than they were before the prohibition of guns. We can not think of Gun prohibition as "Gun Control" but merely as "Victim disarmament." Our founders gave us this right because they wanted the U.S. citizens to be protected against a possible future tyrannical government. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court. http://catb.org... Conclusion - We need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against criminals/government.
Increased restrictions should be put on guns in the US

I believe we should increase gun restriction (From now onm I will refer to this as gun control) simply becaue it keeps us safer. (I know I am using part of my argument from another debate) In 2007, 16,929 people (. http://www.fbi.gov... ) were murdered. Now you may say that this is a normal number for international crime rates, But it is not. Looking at the homicide rate of our own country (5.6 murders for every 100,000 people) compared to other developed countries, we see we have a particularly high rate. (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2) (. http://www.photius.com...) So what makes us different from these countries. They are just as developed, and many of the outside influences are the same. So what is the difference? All the countries I listed have some type of gun control. (. http://news.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.guncite.com... . http://archives.cnn.com...) So this proves that gun control is effective. Japan has the strictest gun control and the lowest homicide rate. Now I think we can agree that the purpose of a government is to ensure the welfare and saftey of its citizens, so we should keep our citizens safe by banning guns.
Increased restrictions should be put on guns in the US

Thank you for this debate. Now, my opponent is right when they say I have strong feelings about gun restrictions. Definitions Gun-Firearm. Duh. Restrictions- banning of use of any sort Increase- to take to a higher extent. Now, think about all the places you can't have guns: school, airports, hospitals, etc. There is this thing called a concealed carry permit. This allows you to bring a gun to church, grocery stores, and any other place gun carrying is not unquestionably prohibited. Concealed carry permit holders must meet certain requirement, so even these people must be incredibly responsible. Thinking about the necessary restrictions we already have, I think we have quite enough, and there is no need to increase them. My purpose in this debate is not to do away with gun restrictions. Rather, it is to prove that no further gun restrictions are needed. When my opponent posts their argument, I would be more than happy continue my case. Thank you.
Animal rights -rebuttal

I'll begin my opening argument and then go into rebuttals my next round. Contention 1: Factory Farms= Cheeper and more affordable prices. The method of factory farming is extremely cheep and more effective than traditionial farming/cageless farming. Take for instance the egg industry. If the egg industry were to switch back to traditionial methods the cost of eggs would increase by a whopping total of 40%! (. http://smallfarms.cornell.edu...) "According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way. " (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) You can see from the above statement that a majority of our products are produced at factory farms and this shows how much of a price increase that it would cause from closing down Factory Farms. It will also take up a total of 580,000 additionial acres for farmers which takes away from their other livestock driving up prices all across the board. People who grow such foods usually place the "Organic label on the food, but those who buy such food are found to pay 20% more then food made by factory farms. Dary products would also suffer a 30% increase under the closing of factory farms. (. http://eartheasy.com...) The switch is also expected to increase from the average of $6,372 to $8,232 per year. It does not seem like much, but that is a 30% increase for the average family in America. (. http://www.creditloan.com...) The last large jump in dary was in 2011 when the price of milk jumped 30% from $3.30 per gallon to $4.40. There were experts perdicting that the world would face certain doom and starvation in the 1900s as the world population was growing largely, but due to factory farming and Green Technology the food production has been able to keep pace with the world population. It is said that if it weren't for this technology that we would only have 1/27th of the world's current population. Between 1961-1985, the world's ceral prodcution has more than doubled. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...)Not to mention that they get stronger and all the sex they want to reproduce more product and we all, including animals, like sex. Picture of stronger pigs bellow for humor. Contention 2: Economic Benefits Factory farms have many economic benefits, for example, each year they provide the US with a total of 700,000 jobs. (www. foodispower. org/factory_farm_workers. htm) These jobs are mainly helping people in the rual comminity. Since the factory farms are very reliant on machinery this has caused the increase in other jobs in producing the machinerery of such equipment. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) In 2005, factory farming accounted for 40% of the Global meat production. Meaning that alone, the factory farming had helped support and feed over 2.8 billion people. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Animal rights -rebuttal

If you consider yourself superior to animals, I believe that according to your soundproof logic any being superior to the other has control over them. Your parents have the right to physically, mentally and emotionally abuse you and bullies at schools have the right to do what they do just because they 'consider' themselves superior. If this is what you think then I am truly sorry to say that you are self centered and selfish creature who climbs up by pushing others down or worse,stepping on them.
evolution of taming a wild animal

Alright I appreciate the minor clarification you have provided. A couple points.1. The resolution was a directive style resolution.What this means is that the resolution challenged the debaters to provide examples that they could support the resolution.So the thing we needed to support was the evolution of taming wild animals. You did not do that. You had only enzo the tiger. I on the other hand, had video games, a zookeeper, and some common logic to explain the current evolution state of taming wild animals.So as it rests, I have won the resolution.2. Your statements have been too vague so far to warrant a ballot."it takes knowledge to tame a beast like that.."This statement has no evidential support, and doesn't make sense in the context of the current evolution state of taming wild animals."i dont think tame means lazy"Then what is your argument. I really cannot find an argument in round 1 from you, apart from that idea.Also, I had to infer LITERALLY EVERYTHING I did from round 1 out of a VIDEO. Your video had no points to make concerning the topic. But you thought it valid evidence. I gave it my best shot, yet tore it to pieces nonetheless.For this skimpiness of arguments by Pro, I ask voters vote Con.Thank you, and round 1 of the 42 vs vi_spex war has concluded.42
evolution of taming a wild animal

Ok you got me with the cuteness there haha. Enzo the tiger is going to be stuck in my head all day now.Silliness aside, round 1 of this war begins.First of all what are you trying to make a point of? That when you tame wild animals the end of that chain of evolution is they become lazy? If so I have responses.1. Enzo was tired.Self explanatory.2. Enzo is a rare case of a wild animal that is tamed.Tigers are pretty hard to tame, so Enzo is a rare example that proves your point.3. Tame Wild Animals are very useful, not just lazy. I mean, this should prove the point. Also animals have been helped out by humans too.Now for some quick arguments.1. The evolution of taming a wild animal is not Enzo, it is this.And this, And this sad crap. "kill the cow" *sigh*2. What do you mean by wild animals?Some definitions, or even clarification would have been nice. A YouTube video is not enough to do the subject justice unfortunately.With that, you have just been rekt.42
The Holocaust was a Bad Thing

I thought it was fun and a good competition of creativity.1. Re: Re: Re: Re: 'MURICA! Pro has conceded to my arguments of the failure of Roosevelt's New Deal. That means he also conceded to the fact that USA needed the war to regain it's shambled economy. Now on to my rebuttal. The conception of the Holocaust is the root cause of the entire WWII, and this happened when Hitler published his book Mein Kampf in 1925. * Even though it didn't spark the Pearl Harbor, the convoluted internal links is surely evident. Without the conception of the Holocaust, there would be no implementation of the Holocaust, which would mean Japan wouldn't have sided with Axis because there would be no European conflict. Thus, the entire conflict of WWII begun with the conception of Hitler's genocide. Hitler's Holocaustic ideas led to the WWII, which brought the US into war. This war was what brought the US out of the depression and into the global leadership position.2. Re: Re: Re: Re: Prevention Against GenocideThe fact is that there will always be genocide in the world. The only good that can come from this world is educating the world by starting in the education. In the Genocide unit, the primary example is the Holocaust. It sets as an example for the things that can happen if we don't stop genocide attempts in time. Thus, in a genocide-inherent world, the best thing to do is still to educate our kids about it, which is the undisputed product of the atrocities of the Holocaust.3. Re: Re: Re: Re: Slows OverproductionThe Pro has dropped the fact that global hunger is in fact caused by the unequal distribution of food and not the shortage. He says that the 11 million deaths from the Holocaust isn't a lot in the long run, but the resultant World War II killed over 60 million people, a staggering 2.5% of the world population at the time! ** Because of these casualties, we prevent a lot of people from having children which would make the population of today way more than 7 billion. This in the long run, which is about 50 years from now, is very substantial. The amount of people killed in WWII is substantial enough to change today's population. This, in turn, does affect the global hunger.4. Re: Re: Re: Millions of Innocent People DiedI conceded that these people died for it is a fact that people died. However, these people died to make world a better place. CONCLUSIONEven though the immediate effects of the Holocaust and WWII were bad, the long-term reform, effects, and prevention far outweigh the harm of the Holocaust. In the end, the United States became the hegemon because of its power gained from WWII. Once again, thank you for hosting this debate! I hope the impartial voters will only evaluate the contents within this debate. Thank you, and have a nice day. *. http://en.wikipedia.org...;**http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Holocaust was a Bad Thing

Re: 'MURICA! (. http://www.washingtonsblog.com...) This site talks about "Broken Window fallacy" Saying that while a broken window can lead to a better window being put in, If the window was never broken, the shop owner would not have to pay to put a new one in. After that analogy, It gives more examples on how spending on war takes money away from a nation's civilians. Bottom line: While war is thought to help an economy, in all reality it's better that a war never happens in the first place.2. Re: Prevention Against Genocide(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) While I understand Wikipedia is not commonly considered a reliable source, you'll find that this section is crawling with citations showing that after world war two, thousands of Germans were exiled from their homes (an ethnic cleansing resulting directly from WWII). You'll also find that the number of genocides has not decreased in any way after WWII. In fact, looking up the list of genocides in history, it seems that perhaps more have happened after WWII then in any era of the same length. Bottom Line: The Holocaust had a negative to no effect on the genocide rate.3. Re: Slows OverpopulationMy Argument: Overpopulation is not an issue(. http://www.collegiatetimes.com...) There is more food being produced now than at any other time in the history of the world. The starving people's rate had even dropped to 13%. I will also run on this sources logic that when a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more valuable. If that were to mean a human survival decline, the Birth Rate would also decline. Therefore, if overpopulation would cause a lack of resources, the population would go back down.4. Millions of Innocent People DiedMy opponent did not even attempt to attack this argument, therefore it still exists in favor for the Pro. Therefore, because war does not improve the economy, genocide rates have not changed, overpopulation is not a significant issue, and because millions of innocent people died, The Holocaust was a bad thing, Therefore you should vote in favor of the Affirmative.
The Holocaust was a Bad Thing

I guess I'll try even though this is a very near-hopeless position. But I'll amuse the debate community and hopefully not offend anyone.1. 'MURICA! The World War II was primarily begun as the German's conquest for a pure Aryan race. The ensuing conflict led to the little war known as World War II. Without the World War II, there wasn't anything to pick America out of the Great Depression. In fact, it is now recognized as the sole successful solution to the Depression. With WWII, the United States was able to become the dominant global hegemon for decades and they still are. So without the Holocaust to start it all, there would be no capitalist America.II. Prevention Against GenocideAfter the WWII, the world became more aware of rising dictators and imminent genocides. Despite them still happening in the last 70 years, awareness have been raised, primarily from the atrocities of the Holocaust.III. Slows OverpopulationWith less people on Earth, there is less people to reproduce which slows the growth of the population. Overpopulation will eventually lead to way more deaths due to the limitation of resources so it will actually make the deaths of the Holocaust seem not as bad.In conclusion, the Holocaust and the reforms it brought changed the future drastically into where we live now.
Global Warming Is a Hoax

First of all, the 95% figure is not bounded in scientific fact. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is directly related to the temperature, therefore, an increase in temperature causes more water vapour. You are correct that water vapour is a factor, but it alone can not make a difference, and CO2 is still one of the main causes of global warming. Water vapour only makes changes from CO2 larger. There has not been an increase in volcanic eruptions. What we see is an increased global population who may inhabit areas of the world which have never been lived on, and volcanic eruptions now have global effects. The main difference is that the earth is monitored with satellites that measure volcanic activity in all areas of the globe. Saying volcanic "reactions" have increased has no scientific backing at all. So, with 2016 being the hottest year on record and sea surface temperatures at 0.7 degrees higher that the 20th century, it is conclusive, global warming exists.
Global Warming Is a Hoax

First, its irrelevant that it water vapor only stays for 10 days because it'll be replaced. Water vapor makes up 95% of green house gases and its impacted mostly by volcanoes and changes in solar activity. You say it "can't build up and considerably warm the earth" but thats just not true, look at dry deserts-- they are 100 degrees during daytime and -10 degrees at night, due to there being to water. CO2 does not have anywhere the impact of water vapor as you claim! And most CO2 comes from natural sources like the ocean. Also your point that after world war 2, that there were more volcanic reactions is just not ture--- http://agatelady.blogspot.com... Volcanic reactions continue to go up yet temperatures haven't gone down. This shows the inconsistency of evidence for global warming. Every prediction for global warming made, have turned out to be false. They've constantly been wrong! So I end, Polar bears are thriving, not dying!
Global Warming Is a Hoax

First off, water vapour has a relatively small effect on the global climate. Yes, it is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, but it has on average only 10 days in the atmosphere before it falls to earth in a weather event. This means it can't build up and considerably warm the earth. The only way more water vapour could build up is with the increase in CO2 emissions (or other greenhouse gases), the global temperature rises and more water evaporates, and so on. Carbon Dioxide does have a large impact on climate change. The reason temperatures fell after Word War 2 was a high concentration of sulphate aerosols released from industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. It scatters the radiation from the sun and reflects it back into space. The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols, and by the 1970s their cooling effect was outweighed by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Global Warming Is a Hoax

First off, humans have had less than 0.00022 carbon dioxide emissions in our history. We only produce about 3% of total carbon dioxide admissions today. According to your graph, our 3% impact means would have increased the total the total carbon dioxide in our air by 33%. How is this possible? Obviously humans weren't entirely responsible. Carbon dioxide doesn't even have that huge of an impact. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Climate change can not be simply contributed to one cause, it's just more complicated than that! CO2 has a very minor impact on climate change! I mean, water vapor has a much larger effect on climate(but we cant control that). By pushing the lie of man made global warming, some scientists make millions, even billions of dollars from people and governments. Remember, all the arguments for global warming were used 30 years ago for the upcoming ice age which never came.
Global Warming Is a Hoax

To adress your argument, never in this 4.5 billion year history has the temperature climbed this quickly before. In 650,000 years the CO2 levels have never been this high (source: https://climate.nasa.gov...) despite 7 cycles of warming and cooling periods In that time. The introduction of CO2 from humans, however small that may be, has shifted the balance that Nature has held over the 650,000 years, and plants and other "Carbon Sinks" can no longer absorb enough CO2 to prevent the collection of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I would like to ask you a question, if global warming is a hoax, like you claim it to be, why would the government 'waste' $32.5 billion on solving the issue.
Global Warming Is a Hoax

The main reason the data supporting global warming is flawed, is because the data is only shows us 100 years of global temperature. The earth is 4.5 billion years old with cycles of warming and cooling happening every 10,000 years. The 100 years of data is nothing! Nothing goes straight up or down, it just doesn't happen. Even in your 100 years of data, the data is not consistent. From 1940 to 1975 the temperature actually decreased 0.1"C. Back then the hoax was that there would be a ice age coming due to humans. Guess what, no ice age ever came. Now they came up with a new hoax-- global warming. Al Gore made 300 million dollars from the scam and the government wasted $32.5 billion since 1989 funding global warming projects. The reality is that climate always change, but it has nothing to do with mankind. Mother nature controls climate--she controls 97% of CO2 admissions! Watch this:
Abortion is a benefit to the western world.

First of all; the reliability of your data is questionable because it is so old, second of all; you cannot simply say that selfishness is the primary reason for women getting abortion. If a young woman who is unfit to become a mother has an abortion, she does it because not ready but this does not necessarily mean she is selfish, it just means that she is not ready. In response to your claim about "Post Abortion Syndrome"; I see that most of the symptoms which you have stated, only seem short-term. A study has even concluded that women who have had abortions have not been affected, psychologically, in the long-term by their operation. The American Psychological Association also concluded, in a summary from the "Koops Report", that abortion did not carry mental health risks and that lack of support after the abortion was the only cause of conflicting feelings. http://en.wikipedia.org... I still stand by original statement,"Abortion is a benefit to the western world". The reason I believe so is because the legality of abortion gives women, who would be unfit to become mothers, the option to take control of their lives and make their own choice. Another reason why it is a benefit is because; in the western world, if abortion were illegal, many women, who would want abortion, would probably decide on illegal procedures which would cause horrible injuries. this is another reason why abortion is a benefit to the western world.