BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

"security of a free state" is a reference to protection from foreign invasion, not domestic revolt. At the time of the Constitution, the Regular Army was very small and weak. It was assumed that a strong militia would always be necessary to supplement national defense against foreign invaders, just as it was in the Revolutionary War. Obviously, this is no longer the case today, as the Regular Army is now extremely powerful, and the need for state militias has all but evaporated. The thing standing in the way of the government not choosing to stop elections is the elections themselves - namely, to elect people who we trust to not do that. But, we can't even get the majority of citizens to vote at all, so what makes you think a majority of citizens would agree to do something more difficult? Since you have answered yes to citizens owning heavy machine guns and not having to demonstrate competence before carrying them around, please kindly explain why. This is an insane idea.
Gun Control

I will answer the first two questions first. Yes, and yes.It is extremely unlikely the second amendment could be anything other than protection from the government, considering the time it was created. America is a country that was formed from a revolution, and its founders were traitors. They knew well that the system has potential to fail, and become as tyrannical as the country they overthrew."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."Notice security of a free state in particular.If the people are not armed, to at least present an annoyance to the government, then there is nothing backing the people if the government just decided to stop listening to the people. In other words if the government chose to stop holding elections for instance, without an armed populus there is nothing standing in the way.The idea of opportunity for rebellion regulates itself. If enough people attempt to rebel because of true discontent for the government that it actually poses a threat, chances are they aren't being heard.
Gun Control

The goal of the 2A is not to keep the government under control. This is a common misconception. Think about it - it makes no sense. Is the government really intimidated by a citizen with an AR-15? No. Just look at any "rebellion" that has been tried against the US government, from the Branch Dividians at Waco all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. The government easily crushed all of them. Even the Civil War, which was arguably a rebellion by the citizens of 11 whole states, ended in failure. The other huge problem with thinking the 2A is meant to help citizens resist tyranny is - what exactly is the definition of "tyranny" and which citizens get to decide when the government needs to be overthrown? Individual citizens don't have the right to decide to overthrow the government because we live in a representative democracy. That's why it's a mistake to interpret the 2nd Amendment this way. You have not answered any of my other objections - no regulations means a civilian could buy a heavy machine gun. Do you support this? No open carry classes means civilians could carry weapons without demonstrating competence with them. Do you support this?
Gun Control

Who desides who the criminal is?The government.What is the goal of the second amendment?To keep the government under control.Requiring background checks has the problem of offering an easy means for the government to overstep and disarm people when it really counts.So my problem isn't in keeping criminals from having them, but rather the potential of the government to make people who disagree with them into said criminal.“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Thomas Jefferson“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick HenrySo, why I entirely understand wanting to disarm criminals, the control that it can give the government is a large risk to me. Not to mention gangs all over the country have huge supplies of guns already, so it isn't likely that gun control makes much of a difference at this point.I think money and time is much better invested in mental health and child resources.
Gun Control

By my opponent's own admission in the comments, they are advocating for no gun control/regulation whatsoever. This is lunacy. No background checks, for example, would mean a known criminal could walk into a store and buy a gun. No limitations on types of arms available to civilians means someone could buy a heavy machine gun or grenade launcher. No requirements to go through an open or concealed carry safety class means people could just carry guns around without having to demonstrate competence with them. This would be no different than letting people drive cars without passing a driving test. The list could go on, but I'll stop here for now and see how Con responds.
Donald Trump should not be trusted to uphold conservative policies.

Donald Trump should not be trusted to uphold conservative policies.Donald Trump: "...the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States in the 2016 election."Trust: "...confident expectation of something...".Uphold: "...to support or defend...".Conservative: "The principles and policies of a Conservative party." i.e. Referring to the Conservative Party of the United States of America.Policies: "A high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body."1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance (i.e. Opponent agrees to the debate and terms of the debate).2nd round: Main arguments only.3rd round: Rebuttals/counters/additional points.Rules:- No abuse of semantics.(This is standard since I gave definitions)-No trolling.- A forfeit is an automatic loss.-Cite sources.Sources:https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.dictionary.com...http://www.dictionary.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion

Some women get unintentionally pregnant, whether by rape or just making whoopie. This is why abortion exists; in case a woman gets pregnant but doesn't want the baby. Now, the common response is that we could take the child to an orphanage. However, then there's the problem with teen pregnancy; sometimes a teenager will get pregnant. Since they're not ready to give birth, the child may get defects, which leads to no one wanting this baby. It would be better then if the child didn't exist in the first place; having an abortion.
The Wahabi is the most evil faith in existence today.

Hi. This is my second debate about Islam against Stupid ape. In the first one stupid ape lost a heavy loss, and I hope it happens again. In that one, stupid ape made a vague excuse that there were language barriers. I hope that excuse doesn't come again. http://www.debate.org... No, Wahhabism (not Wahabi) is not the most evil faith in existence today. Wahabism is not a faith. It is a religious movement. https://en.wikipedia.org... Islam does NOT have 'slavery'. Islam does NOT have 'multiple husband'. Polygamy is multiple wives not multiple husbands. Islam does NOT have 'religious intolerance'. Islam does NOT support 'misogynism'. Islam does NOT have 'extreme racism'. It does NOT support racism. Islamic tradition known as Hadith states that in his final sermon the Prophet Muhammad, Allah"s Blessings and Peace be upon him, said: "There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white " except by piety." A YouTube video is not an argument nor a proof. I REQUEST ANYBODY SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH TO JUDGE A RELIGION NOT BY IT'S DWELLERS, BUT BY IT'S ORIGINAL BELIEF. I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY PERSONAL OPINION. Thnx, Adil Muhammad, QATAR.
The Wahabi is the most evil faith in existence today.

I've been making some arguments trying to figure out how good/evil Islam is. It appears a large faction of the most evil deeds committed by Muslims, come from the Wahabi faith. Just as Catholics and Quakers are both Christians, yet they are not the same. From slavery, to multiple husband, to extreme racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, and misogynism. If Satan exists, Saudi Arabia would be his stronghold. Thanks in advance for arguing this debate. 1.
The Government Should Substantially Curtail Its Domestic Surveillance

But first I should like to point out that it cannot be the Con team who presents the first argument, as is standard in a policy debate, the Pro (Affirmative) team must present and defend a plan and take the full burden of proof. But I will gladly provide you with definitions. The Government: Then United States Federal government, consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial branches which control the United States. Substantially: "Substantial" is defined as one-third of total assets. Curtail: reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on. Its: referring in this case to ownership by the United States Federal Government Domestic Surveillance: the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a surreptitious manner. …………may be applied to observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment (such as CCTV cameras), or interception of electronically transmitted information (such as Internet traffic or phone calls). It may also refer to simple, relatively no- or low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents and postal interception. Thanks, I await your plan.
The Government Should Substantially Curtail Its Domestic Surveillance

Please only accept if you are familiar with this topic and know what the government has done in order to use surveillance to collect information from citizens of this country. First round is acceptance round. Please state your argument and define all the terms in the topic resolution. My declaration: the U.S. should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance because overreaching laws have been passed that give the government the unconstitutional right to intrude on our privacy. RULE: No spicy language.
Merci killing should be legalized

"Overwhelming majority of doctors close their eyes on this swear". This is an unfounded statement. What, approximately, are the rates of doctors that "close their eyes on this swear"? My opponent seems to have missed my point. It is the duty of all doctors and nurses to uphold the oath they swore to. Yes, there may be unscrupulous health professionals, but that does not mitigate the significance of the Hippocratic Oath and the Nightingale Pledge. Doctors and nurses entered the health care profession to ameliorate and prolong lives, not to end them. Just because people ignore rights and laws doesn't mean we should do away with them. Further, if my opponent is so certain that doctors will not even adhere to the law, then why allow these untrustworthy doctors to perform mercy killings, a practice that could be abused?
Merci killing should be legalized

However, I may say that you live in twentieth century and follow for instance this Hippocratic Oath but actually in modern times everything has its price and with the help of bribe you can achieve almost all targets that you want and overwhelming majority of doctors close their eyes on this swear. Unfortunately, people's menatality is another and they can neglect all wrights and laws. Once again, I can notice that euthanasia should be legalized only relying on even budget of the relatives. For a bright instance, I know one sad story when old-aged husband was waiting for wife's recovery but in the end doctors told him that there weren't any chances for recovery. And he paid about 300000$.
Merci killing should be legalized

Mercy killing is against the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors ("I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect") and the Nightingale Pledge taken by nurses ("I shall abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and shall not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug"). Legalizing mercy killing would force doctors and nurses to go against what their entire profession stands for.
Should students be expelled for bad grades

This is not a good reason for kids to not be allowed in school. If students are getting bad grades, they should be given a chance to get those grades up before being kicked out. Although, if you meant that the kids would have time to get their grades up, if they were to be kicked out if they have not met the expectations then where would they go. There are kids with horrible grades everywhere in the world. If all of those kids were kicked out, those boys and girls would be sent into the world with whatever level of information they had. Some of them would not be able to get back into school because they don't want to and/or their parents or guardians wouldn't care enough to send them back. This decision would lead to a global amount of people being less intelligent and a less effective and efficient human race. Which is not what we need right now since there are starving individuals, rising climates, and rough relations internationally. So anyone and everyone with enough education to fix these problems needs education to get there so someone needs to teach these kids to reach their full potential.
I am a chair and you are a bench

Okay my fellow niggah. You must argue that you are a bench, and that I am a chair, while I argue that we are not, but rather I am a narwhal and you are God. I will start with how you are god. 1. I am atheist, but will change, to take on you as my God, so you = God 2. Gods have been alive for longer than little narwhals like myself. You have been on DDO for longer than me so you = God 3. God is a guy. You are a guy. 4. You are not emma watson. God is not emma watson. you are god 5. Asians exist 6. No God has proven existance in history. You have none either. Untill i made you god 7. You are a virgin. God is a virgin. You are god. 8. I say you are god. I am not lying. You = God 9. 69 10. You can not be a bench as you can type 12. Eleven does not exist
I am a chair and you are a bench

Chair has dropped all arguments, thus my argument that he is a chair and that I am a bench is unrefuted while his arguments that he is a narwhal and I am God has been refuted. I thank the Pro for this debate which is one of the best first debates I have ever witnessed and It was a pealsure to take part in it. I thank all of the voters for reading as well. I now take my leave chair, but you will always remember this day as the day you almost defeated. .. .. Captain. .. .. Jack. .. .
Jesus Christ was a Historical Person

If Con is claiming there were 5 Jesus Christ characters, my burden of proof in this debate is complete. I was clear that we don’t have a single historical Jesus that correlates to the bible. If Con thinks his burden equates to proving that there have been men in the past named Jesus he is grossly mistaken. It’s a common name in many cultures. * And it is Jewish and of the very group who rejected Jesus and had him crucified. They had no logical motive to invent a threat to their own religion. This is just an assertion. The Talmud did not create Jesus. The references are a reaction to Christianity. Again there is no historical record. Just second hand references. * Con admits we have a non-Christian confirmation from the first century of the founding of Christianity. Early Christianity was Chaotic and there were many competing views. Like a confirmation of the founding of Mormonism or scientology this in no way confirms that there is any truth to it. Islam believes Jesus existed. Our number of "Jesus existed " believers just went up to more than half of planet Earth. Adding more confirmed believers does not make this more than an ad populum fallacy. That the Quran, another religious document, has an opposing account of the Jesus myth does not add any weight to the claim. I appreciate the biblical references but they are not remarkable and I’ve replied to the content. Con admits there was a rabbi named "Jesus". No, I’m saying that this was at one point a common name. We have no historical account off a Jesus that corresponds to the biblical account. There is actually more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar Con asserts this without providing evidence. Jospehus/Cornelius Tacitus Again second hand references to a mythical figure are not a historical record. They are references to a myth of a legend. Saying that group believes in a mythical figure is not a historical record. The followers of Christ and references to Christians Of course there are going to be early references to Christians and their legendary figure. We still do not have any reliable records about. The New Testament itself is Historical Proof That Jesus Existed. Pro asserts this without evidence. There is no reliable resource that will claim that the bible is a historical document or that it contains any reliable facts. - Pro’s arguments boil down to an assertion that there must have been a man the legend is based on. It’s possible but it’s not anything you can confirm. We have no historical record to base this idea on.
Jesus Christ was a Historical Person

'Similar topics are an auto loss/dive but without clear definitions or rules I left myself an out." This is what we call a retreat, which is fine by me. Con isn't as well established with me as many on this site. If he were, he'd know that I couldn't care less. If Con is in retreat, and I forced him there, I win in my own mind. Nothing else is relevant, thus I now sit a satisfied victor no matter the voting outcome. Con gave me all I wanted. His pure, unadultered submission. I'm good. I also used many, many other sources. Voters are welcome to look through the the sources and the context and validity. Con's own title is "historical". Since he's changing rules, so am I. Why? The outcome of this debate is meaningless white noise and as long as I have backed Con into a defenseless corner, my job here is done according to...myself. Thus, I will not forfeit the last round and will use it for my own morbid satisfaction. * "No sourcing and I could find you a date for the entire book of Mormon, the Quran etc. This doesn"t relate to the resolution." It was sourced. Con missed it. And we know that Joseph Smith and Muhammed existed. My opponent has helped my case. * "I use Wikipedia for broad widely established ideas. Pro used this site excessively along with blogs and religious sites. I think it"s fair to say that his sourcing was not adequate for several points." My wikipedia sourcing was to show #1, that these people did exist in history. Simple enough. * Con: "I need a third hand to help me face palm right now. The writers would obviously know how crucifixion worked." And whether a historical figure named Jesus Christ was crucified. They got other facts correct. Why would we now assume this was the only thing they got wrong. Besides, the Bible itself is a historical document. So are the Gnostic gospels. So is Josephus and the plethera of other non-Christian sources I referenced. * Con: "I responded to the minutia of his assertions." Con admits I brought forth a library's worth of points. * I now pose Con's own decleration. I clarified and explained the resolution in this last round, and Con did not object in any way. Thus, I am in the initial format that Con tried to manipulate in mid-debate. I changed the rules to "I can respond in the last round, and my burden of proof is simple to prove Jesus was known of by more than 1 person, making him historical, real, legendary, etc etc. Con ran away. Con retreated and by his own assertion he "gave himself an out". This was in case Con got schooled at his own game. He did get schooled, He was splattered against the wall of retreat, and I received great pleasure in bending him over my knee and giving him the theological spanking that he deserved. The end.
Abortion : Pro choice is the way to go!!

I don't think you understand what abortion is. When the actual abortion takes place the baby is undeveloped and doesnt even resemble a human. The father should get a say but overall it should be the mothers decision. It is her body and it is happening to HER!! Okay lets pretend its a 16 year old does that number work better for you? She's going to be disowned then were will they go? Who will pay the bills? Where will they live? And a lot of fathers abandon their girlfriends and their babies because THEY didnt want them. So would you rather have a baby die when its undeveloped or of starvation. If it's killed during abortion it doesnt feel it, it isnt developed. But if it dies of starvation that is a long and painful death. It isn't murder it is a way for a unwanted baby to not be born. It isnt mutilated. Your being incredibly over dramatic. In your next argument you might want to try using your own words as well. And you've used enough statistics doesnt everyone think?
Abortion : Pro choice is the way to go!!

Abortion should be illegal in ALL cases; there are no exceptions. Yes it is sad to see few strangly cases of a pregnancy in a rape victim or incest case, but the majority of abortions are not in these cases. Only 1% of abortions take place in rape or incest victims, 6% occur because of other health problems, and an amazing 93% take place simply because the child is not wanted. In the United States alone, there are 1.37 million abortions each year. Why should kill that many babies when only 7% is related to rape, incest, or other health problems. As for that 13 year old girl who's parents would disown her, only 1.2% of girls under the age of 15 are getting abortions. That means all others are either not getting pregnant or facing their consequences by keeping the child, or giving up for adoption. Not all young girl vote murder. As for most of the people who want abortion made illegal being men, that would be like me saying most of the people who beleive in prochoice are republican and christian. There are equal numbers of men and women who want abortion to be illegal in all cases, that number being 21%. 23% of men and 24% of women want it illegal in most cases. And for the religious people, 37.4% of all abortions are by protestants and 31.3% are by catholics. As of now abortion is the mother's choice. It should also be influenced by the father since the child being mutilated and killed is half his. Overall abortion is a choice. The choice, however, should not be there at all and should be incapable of being made.
Abortion : Pro choice is the way to go!!

Abortion of course isnt the best way to go but sometimes can be good. If a mother is going to die in child birth or the baby is too it can be a good thing. Abortion is not murder it is a way out of a either unwanted OR unsafe pregnancy. What would you tell a 13 year-old girl who got pregnant who's parents would disown her if they found out? Yes, she shouldnt have gotten pregnant but it happened and the past can't be changed. But if she told her parents and they disowned her then what would she do? With a baby and not to mention the fact that she's 13. Abortion is a good thing. I would never have one but that is only because that isn't something that I would want done to MY body. Let's face it it's a mothers choice and most of the people who want it made illegal are men. They will never have to face that because they can't get pregnant. If men could have children I'm sure they would want a choice to. It's always a sad thing to have a unborn baby die but it IS the mothers choice overall!!