BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed

Due to a family emergency, I don't have time to make a fully fleshed out argument but I will later. Let's look at some numbers first. After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearms. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov.... So criminals with guns are hardly an issue, as most just don't have guns, which in your society, they will. According to this http://karisable.com..., people with severe mental illness are responsible for less than one in 20 violent crimes. So those other nineteen people with a "sound" mind, you'll be arming them. And here's my favorite http://arstechnica.com... Just a couple points from that last article: When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations. Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems. And, for every accidental death, Hemenway cites research that indicates 10 more incidents are sufficient to send someone to the emergency room. Suicides are more likely to be successful when guns areinvolved , even though most people who survive such an attempt don't generally try a second time. people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels. This is especially true for women. In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides." In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house;no protective effect of the gun was found." Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor. I look forward to my opponents arguments.
We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed

I am certainly not saying that everyone will be required to carry a fire arms. However, I am saying that we would be safer if all people of sound mind was armed. sound mind clarification- any person having any mental problem that threatens or might threaten their ability to make sound reasoned decisions should be banned from carrying a gun. criminals will buy and carry guns whether its legal or illegal We would all be safer if everyone has a gun, because the bad guy will always be out numbered. There are always more law abiding citizens than there are criminals. The criminal will be less likely to pull out a gun if he knows that the other person is armed as well. The criminal will be less likely to strike in broad day light, any place where there are a great number of people located at or anytime that it is two or more people. Even if its a gang of criminals, there would be nothing stopping average citizens from stopping their cars and pulling out their fire arms. The criminals have the advantage right now. They don't care about the law so that carry concealed weapons that might be used against any of us law abiding citizens. I want that advantage taken from them immediately.
The ellipsis should have 2 dots/periods/full-stops instead of 3.

The ellipsis "..." is wasting a character and precious paper space as well as ink for no reason at all. Two dots/periods/full-stops mean nothing in particular so why are we wasting a symbol?It is okay, I understand, it will waste many resources to replace all the past instances of ellipses with two. So how about just from today onwards it is enforced?It literally wastes an extra bit of memory in a server every time it's typed. This is not actually a joke, imagine all the ellipses that have ever been used at all on the Internet, how much faster would it be if it required only 2?On the off-chance that someone comes in here supporting militant-nihilism in the sense that we should end our lives and all that is as fast as possible and wasting resources is a good way to do this, I would like to point out that of all the punctuation marks, the only one wasting anything is the one that is used least often, so that's a very foolish angle to take because it doesn't remotely justify why of all the punctuation symbols this one is irrationally wasting space while the others are clearly conserving it other than perhaps the question mark.First round is not for acceptance...That would have been a waste of resources. ;)
The ellipsis should have 2 dots/periods/full-stops instead of 3.

Making an ellipsis two dots would ruin its essence and create frustration. People today are accustomed to seeing an ellipsis with three dots. When they see the three dots, they take a pause of an appropriate length. Their brains are trained to do this. Changing the way an ellipsis looks would change the mental pause that is taken. Even speed-readers who do not have a "head-voice" would still suffer from this- what about text that is written to be spoken? If the president's speech writer put an ellipsis in his speech, the president would need to know what kind of pause to take. The length of this pause could completely change the political impact. Also, typing only two periods looks like a typo. I make your proposed ellipsis accidentally when I'm typing too fast. Every time a reader saw a two-dot ellipsis, they would have to wonder whether or not it was intentional. A three-dot ellipsis is confidence-inspiring. I know that it was not done accidentally. I can pause without doubt. Having three dots builds anticipation. It takes your eyes longer to scan it. During this time, you revel in wonder. Your proposed ellipsis looks like I accidentally put two periods in the middle of my sentence. Also, changing a punctuation mark is a big deal. Even if the proposed change was awesome, it would not look aesthetically pleasing for a very long time. This is because we are used to the old mark. It will stand out. Imagine a world with a newly implemented two-dot ellipsis. If you're engrossed in a story, whenever you see an ellipsis you will be shocked out of it. No matter which ellipsis it is, you're suddenly thinking about when the book was written. You're thinking about punctuation instead of the pause you were supposed to be taking. If we're going to edit punctuation, the ellipsis really isn't top priority. What about a sarcasm mark? Relationships have been ruined over the lack of this punctuation in texting. This mark could change the inherent nature of the written word, opening up a new realm of writing possibilities. But you want to waste our time editing a perfectly good piece of punctuation? The extra dot in the ellipsis really isn't wasting that much. We, as a society, have developed enough to allow ourselves some luxuries. Not everything must be done to conserve resources. This is the solution to a problem we don't have. Even if it really was a problem, changing the ellipsis wouldn't be big enough to solve it. Still, even if it was, it would not be worth the consequences.
This House [Strongly] Condemns The Use Of Recreational Cannabis!

More specifically I will be arguing that the good value of using recreational cannabis over alcohol and tabacoo is more beneficial than using recreational alcohol and tabacco, for if recreational cannabis is condemmed people will more likely turn to alcohol or tabacco to get their drug fix. Case: Moderate use of Cannabis can lead to multiple health benefits including relieving pain, helping people with PSTD forgetting about their painful memories, nasea treatment, stimulant on appetiate, asthma medication, glaucoma medication, and sleep aid, as well as helping cure cancer, or stop its development. (. http://www.leafscience.com...) (. http://www.medicaldaily.com...) (. http://www.businessinsider.com...) There is also a feeling of relaxation when someone is "high" on cannabis. Compare this to the rise of violence and abuse of drinking alcohol (. http://www.news.com.au...) In fact, cannabis has been shown as a safer drug and is confirmed by multiple news sources and a scientific report. ( . http://www.washingtonpost.com...) (. http://www.independent.co.uk...) (. http://bgr.com...) (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) In conclusion, cannabis use should not be condemed because it may indirectly encourage alcohol use. Cannabis use should also not be condemmed because it has more health benefits than alcohol and tabbaco, and cannabis use has less dangerous consequences than alcohol use. Therefore, cannabis use should not be condemmed, instead, alcohol (and tabbaco) use should be more strongly condemmed.
This House [Strongly] Condemns The Use Of Recreational Cannabis!

Welcome! <>THIS DEBATE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT. PLEASE COMMENT OR PRIVATE MESSAGE ME IF YOU WISH TO ACCEPT THIS AND I SHALL SEND IT AS A CHALLENGE. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE IS A TIME LIMIT OF 48/HR PER ROUND AND ONLY 10, 000 CHARACTERS ALLOWED<>Resolved: This House [Strongly] Condemns The Use of Recreational Cannabis*! *In any amount, no matter how small. Premise: I believe the topic speaks for itself. I shall be arguing that cannabis, and all its derivations such as marijuana should not be used recreationally. This is not a practical debate in so far as I shall not argue, in particular, that it be banned, however I shall argue that it ought to be condemned, and disproved strongly. I shan't argue for an overdose, but all doses, and so I shall argue that any amount, within reason (so not just one puff your entire life, but lets say one bong every week or two weeks) is harmful and should be repudiated. The main burden of proof lies with the Proposition.
Suicide is not necessarily inherently wrong.

Thank you for accepting this challenge. I'd like to start off by addressing the concept of right or wrong, which are moral concepts that are differentiated through culture, religion, and life experiences as well as personal opinion. As such, it varies by person. The idea that an action or thought is wrong is purely subjective, regardless of whether the majority agrees or disagrees with that notion.Suicidal tendencies are not feelings that come easily. Rather, they are more often than not a result of continuous torment from intolerable amounts of physical, emotional, and/or mental suffering, usually a combination of them too. It is only natural to desire an end -- a solution, to rid oneself from such overwhelming exposure to such disheartening stimuli. When suicidal thoughts drift in, it can be expected that the agony at that point exceeds the will to survive. Consider this, a human is brought to the point at which he would willingly prefer death over life, just to end the source of their torment: life.Morally speaking, you claim that is unjust for the people around the victim for them (the victim) to commit suicide. That seems rather unjust to the victim themself, the person actually suffering real-time. From your statement, I can only infer that you mean to claim that committing suicide is selfish (= wrong), but why must someone needlessly suffer, disadvantage themselves, and even go against their own, true and justfied will to appease other people?Can you really hold the value of the potential emotional trauma of a several people equal to the real and existing trauma experienced by the victim? Even if you could, is it really wrong to want to end pain and permanently rid the possibility of suffering?
Morality is more important than human desires.

To answer your question. Not all people are equal. Some people are timid and submissive. Others are violently aggressive. Some are generous and altruistic. Others are stingy and self centered. It is true that making those who have criminalistic tendencies conform to the middle road in behavior would benefit society. However, if you chose to do make everyone conform to the same standards of behavior. The world will lose the natural instincts of generous people. Thus, my point remains. People when left to their natural desires will lead to world improvement. The real question is whether those desires can be fulfilled in a moralistic way. Do you agree?
Morality is more important than human desires.

That is true, our human desires do indeed inspire us to do good things and to invent new technology. However, I disagree with your claim that our technology has improved because of our violent nature at war. Yes, our war technology is better, but you are avoiding the main question here. I am asking whether all human nature desires improves society as a WHOLE, not just one or two factors. The question you are avoiding is this; Is it more important to teach people what is right and wrong (drugs, murder, being honest, etc) than it is to tell people to follow their thoughts and feelings? Because in reality we are supposed to avoid some of our feelings and we are supposed to not act on it. That is the question. Not if whether our weapons are better because of war or how much women get pregnant. The question here is simply, is teaching people about the right thing more important than teaching them to what whatever their hearts desire? I believe it is more important to teach kids about how to obey your parents, how to be honest, how to avoid drugs, that sort of things. Because sometimes our human desires want us to rebel and lie and steal, which is not the way to go... So, stop avoiding the question and get right to the point. Is it more important to teach morals to kids like no stealing and being honest? Or is it better to tell them they should just do whatever they want? That is what this debate is about.
Morality is more important than human desires.

Following desires is not the same as being an extremist. In the same way that you should not advocate a complete ban on all sex, drugs and killings, I do not advocate complete chaos when following human desires. Without a desire for sex, there would be no children for the next generation. Historically, drugs were used as recreational devices long before they were used for medicinal purposes. Man's desire for drug induced effects has led to pain relief for medical patients. Without a desire to kill and conquer, modern science would not exist. Without the desire to kill, much of technology would not be invented. I am of course talking about man's desire to kill for conquest in war - not to randomly cut people's heads off. I am arguing that human desires are what causes people to be motivated to improve life. For example, even something as simple as media formats was decided on what the porn industry preferred. http://news.cnet.com... The bottom line is that desires cause progress. We are much better off having desires with the occasional crime than living without any desire for life and being like vegetables throughout life.
Morality is more important than human desires.

Can you give me any historical evidence of when immorality benefited society? I highly disagree on your claim that immorality and human desires benefits society, history proves that wrong. I understand that people disagree with each other on morality, but I'm sure we'd all agree on some things. If we fully teach people to follow human desires, that will turn out to be people killing each other, pedophiles running out raping children, it wouldn't be a nice sight. It's foolish to say that it is beneficial to only teach people to follow their human desires. We need a basic moral guideline to teach people so they don't go out on drugs and constant sex and murder...
Morality is more important than human desires.

You are incredibly wrong! Lack of morality in no way causes ruin. Mankind has always been immoral it is human nature. Immorality has led to on.ly good throughout history. Human desire is the catalyst for all of progress throughout mankind's history. Human desires for money lead to wealth creation and innovation. Desires for relaxation lead to convenience. Desires for conquest and dominance lead to advances in technology. All of these advances caused by mankind's desires have been a great benefit. Finally, morality is a personal ideal. One man's morality is another's immorality.
Morality is more important than human desires.

I believe that teaching morality in society is more important than endorsing human desires. It is dangerous to endorse human desires because we are all evil and we all fall short on morality. It is important to teach everybody about the dangers of drugs and the dangers of constant fornication. To teach and endorse human desires would be to allow people to go out and ruin themselves and others. Us humans are designed to go all the wish with no stop, so we must be teaching each other to stop and to think.
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

I'm having trouble seeing exactly where you are coming from and without trying to cause offence I don't feel you are being entirely sincere. I feel your philosophy is contradictory as I find it hard to understand your concern regarding police brutality but your wish to have them be the only ones who can carry arms. So your position is if they are the only ones allowed to carry them they will be less likely to shoot innocent people...really? Truth is whatever your position which is somewhat deluded I'm far more afraid of the police hurting me then my peers or neighbours! Look G the excuses fly because they are allowed to..if it were not one excuse it would be another, I feel your passion but please..please give it to more worthwhile arguments!! Personally i don't think you do understand the psychology which to me is quite simple...pumped up psychopaths with a get out of jail free card...may kill you..simple. It has nothing to do with there fear. More people comit suicide each year then shoot at the police or commit murder give me a break! The police's paranoia is what some may call deflection... Would I give up my right to be able to protect myself i n favour of the police protecting me...hell no!!! I doubt most would!!!
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

I accept that unlawful police killings occur BECAUSE THEY DO lol That is a fact that has been proven time and time again so I accept it as such. I don't FEEL the excuses are passable, I just understand that psychologically, politically, and racially these excuse fly cause of their persistent nature in our society. I FEEL that such excuses are bull personally. As i said, repealing concealment laws in addition to other measures is my aim, a part of a larger comprehension program to overhaul the recruitment, training, and psychology of the police department, and public in general. Guns are easy too easy to get through various loopholes in the laws such as only federally licensed gun shops have to run background check, registration of a gun in a new state is voluntary, people who buy gun for other do not serve sever sentences, ect ect. Too many to count really and sadly. Even people on the no fly list, people thought to have committed a terrorist or large violent crime or are planning to, can still buy guns lol The readily availability of guns does not help but if this program and others are implemented, I believe headway can be made. Through psychological testing, incident reports, and other means the officers is found to still be in a hostile mindset they should be dismissed. Personally I advocate that their right to private firearms be revoked as well but that is a different argument lol.
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

No not really my point is quite simple....whatever the law regarding concealment an officer can and is likely to continue to use the same old excuses. Your angle is confusing, it appears as though you accept that unlawful police killings occur but you feel that the excuses they use are passable because people are allowed to carry concealed guns. I'm sorry but as you are aware guns are easy to come bye...right? Then why would the police feel more comfortable if people are not allowed to conceal them. Don't you think that the officer may still feel a bit anxious that someone is not actually abiding to the rules. Come on drop me out!
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

" Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking "oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon" Really? I'm not so sure.. " It seems you are arguing my point for me lol If Mrs Jones is carrying a LEGAL concealed weapon she is most likely white and an older women which by virtue of her age and color is most likely not gonna arouse an officers suspicions unless she was clutching at her chest and he suspected she was having a heart attack lol A black person or any minority is less likely to openly carry a weapon much less conceal it even if it is legal and they are the lawful owner cause of the majority white police force who, by training or by belief, have a prejudice against minorities that if they do have a gun, it is most likely illegal and so they are in danger.