BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
you are more evil than I am crazy

Thank you for the background information. I would like to start with a few reasons of why my opponent is more evil than I crazy, 1. My opponent started off by stating "Before I proceed to rip apart..." This is one example of him being evil, he could have stated to refute my argument or even debate my argument but he chooses the word RIP APART. 2. My opponents screen name is burningpuppies101?!?!?! That is pure evilness, who has a screen name BURNINGPUPPIES101??? 3. As my opponent gave the definition of "Harm: 1 : physical or mental damage", my friend here likes to tazer me (when I say tazer, I mean with his hand he jabs me in the stomach) especially when he knows I despise when he does that. After I told him it hurts because it does...He continues to do it. 4. My last point is that I am not crazy...All though I like the crazy bunny because he looks funny and its a funny message and my name is crazypenguin because I like penguins and without the crazy its just bland old penguin, so that is my point that I am not crazy! Thank you, I will enjoy reading your argument.
Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

My opponent has provided a very strong argument. I would like to reiterate the following 1) Misery is not quantifiable by numbers or words. The mere fact that there is "gun violence" and "death by firearms" is proof that guns do bring misery to the human race. I find it surprising that my opponent has stated that "why we should believe violence and misery in the US is associated in any degree to the right to keep and bear arms" and also stated that "I don't see the connection between "misery" in the US or any other country and "the right to keep and bear arms". I will once again reiterate that gun violence and death by firearms do result in misery and argue that the statistics on child deaths is proof of such misery. 2) The right to bear arms is not a law and can only be considered a law when trying to claim it as a "birthright". The right to bear arms is only a right, regardless of how my opponent would like to argue the matter. My opponent tries to argue that "the right to bear arms is a basic human right" well I would have to rebut that argument by stating that the right to bear arms was not included in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' and the United States was at the time of signing the strongest power in the world. 3) The right to bear arms is a law that is open to the consensus of the people. At the moment that consensus says that the right should remain in the United States of America. In other countries the consensus is towards creating an environment that is free of arms. It is not unchangeable and nor should it be seen as such. 4) The Orange Revolution was raised as an example of how peaceful civil disobedience can shape governments. If people believe that their government may turn tyrannical and still feel the need to harbor weapons then that is their choice and they can chose to bear arms regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. I would argue that people need to voice their opinion early on and hopefully not get to the stage where they are having armed conflicts with their government (especially in the United States). 5) Restricting arms to the sane is a good idea in theory however in practice there are a multitude of problems. The Virginia Tech Massacre is one such example and is the deadliest single shooting rampage in US history (1). Also the number of people taking their lives is evidence that people that are sane at purchase are experiencing periods of instability. I will finish off by arguing that my opponent did raise a lot of good points in this debate, however I would like people to consider the following. Would there be a need for firearms beyond policing and military use if no other civilians had weapons; if governments were completely transparent; and people pursued a course of civil disobedience every time their rights were undemocratically eroded. I would ask people to consider my points before voting. (1). http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Abortion Is *WRONG*

Ok so if you would like to call it a fetus i am ok with that. However a fetis is still alive it has a heart beat and is a living being. so i will change it to the fetus inside the woman should have the same chance at life that you and i did. Ok ethically this would fall under the same thing as my last argument. that the baby should have a chance. And ethicaly who are we to say who lives or dies. Ok unlike hardend criminal sitting on death row (which i am also against but diff. topic) the LIVING fetus never did anything to hurt anybody, never commited a crime. ok the correct term is post abortion stress syndrome and almost all women that have abortions go through this some is worse then others. and they think they can handle it they tell themselves that they can do it. and they cant "First of all, you cant kill what isnt alive" ...Once again after the first couple weeks it is alive with a heartbeat so yess it would be killing it. You brought up the famous "rape" excuse so your saying because a woman was raped and concieved that it is ok to commit murder and murder is defined as "kill intentionally and with premeditation" and once again it is living with a heartbeat so it is intentonal and pemeditated. and once again just adobt it is much better then taking a life. "I notice in my opponents profile that he is a male. Why should a male be making choices for females? They shouldnt. At the very least, the choice should always be left up to the woman. Lest our male dominated society of the past comes back to haunt us.... Which is what my opponent is arguing. " so your saying that i should have no say in my childs life before it is born... however if i were to think that she should have abortion and she dosent i still have to pay child support. they are half my blood so yes as a male i should have a say in what a woman does. if it was just to her body then i see your point but its 2 bodies not 1 so i do get a say. thats like saying the gov. should not be able to tell you you cant murder someone cause thats solely your decision. So far you have given two pros to abortion whereas i have give multiple. you are trying to prove my responses wrong but you arent giving proof for your argument.
Abortion Is *WRONG*

With that, lets gets started. So first what we need to see is that my opponents resolution states that abortion is wrong, not in certain instances, but always. This means that my opponent needs to prove that abortion is wrong in every single way. My opponent is also at a disadvantage in that he needs to prove that abortion should be illegal. He needs to prove this because: 1. He brought up this debate topic 2. He is arguing for a change in the status quo, thus presumption falls to the con because if he cant prove why the status quo should be changed, I win. Lets go on to my opponents case. .. .. "The BABY inside of that womb should at least be givin a fair chance at life" --Every definition I could for 'baby', even medical and legal definitions, basically entitled the word infant or young person. So lets define the word infant. .. . infant-a child during the earliest period of its life, esp. before he or she can walk; baby. ---from dictionary. com Thus, my opponents argument falls because clearly it has to be a child that is already born. So babies already have a shot at life. "-it is completely unethical" --Proof please. .. .. or at the very least. .. . some logic behind this. .. . "the baby never did anything to hurt anyone" --Its not a baby, see argument one. "there is a long waiting list to adobt a baby so instead of aborting give it a chance and adobt it" --My opponent has no proof that there is a long waiting list, and again its not a baby. "-women after abortion often have mental prob. " --Really? Have any proof for that? Any substantial statistics? And if that were true. .. . why would they do it if it made them go crazy? "-think about it as if your parents would have said that we werent ready for you so lets have an abortion. and you wouldnt be debating me right now" --Completely irrelevant. .. . This has nothing to do with the fact that abortion might be wrong. "-we are killing the worlds pos. next leader" --First of all, you cant kill what isnt alive. Secondly, we also may be stopping the worlds next potential hitler or bush. Which is more likely. And would be a good thing. "-parents faults why should baby pay" --Parents fault? It was the girls fault that someone raped her? Nice call. .. . Go tell her that, see how she reacts. .. And again, it isnt a baby. .. . With my opponents case being taken care of. .. . I will move on to one more argument. .. .. I notice in my opponents profile that he is a male. Why should a male be making choices for females? They shouldnt. At the very least, the choice should always be left up to the woman. Lest our male dominated society of the past comes back to haunt us. .. . Which is what my opponent is arguing. With that, I await my opponents rebuttal. .. .
Abortion Is *WRONG*

how can anyone say today with the medical capabilities we have today that with pics and stuff we can take that abortion should be legal. -The BABY inside of that womb should atleast be givin a fair chance at life -it is completely unethical -the baby never did anything to hurt anyone -there is a long waiting list to adobt a baby so instead of aborting give it a chance and adobt it -women after abortion often have mental prob. -think about it as if your parents would have said that we werent ready for you so lets have an abortion. and you wouldnt be debating me right now -we are killing the worlds pos. next leader -parents faults why should baby pay
Abortion Is *WRONG*

Well that is too bad. I was hoping to finish this debate. O well. You can extend everything I said. A woman should have her right to choose since it is her body. The fetus cannot yet be considered true life. And even if it was, my opponent grants me that in the first seven weeks, when it doesnt have a heart, it isn't living. He needed to prove that it is is wrong (or should be illegal) in every instance. He did not. It isn't murder and he did not prove the status quo to be horrible. There is no need for change. I thank my opponent and hope that the voters vote on the debate, not on opinions, and they read the whole thing. Thank you.
Cats are better than dogs

I will gladly accept this challenge! I have a love for all animals, be one with four legs and paws or hooves, two legs with claws and wings, or no legs that slithers or swims! While this is without doubt a completely opinionated topic, I look forward to the evidence (if such a term applies here), that my opponent will bring forth. Good luck, BlackVeilBridesmaid, and may the best spokesperson of our lovable furry companions win!
Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII!!!

The Battle of Stalingrad was by far the most important Battle or WWII. I will start by giving some statistics and reasons to support this. Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad: http://en.wikipedia.org...... -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis The Battle of Kursk was also important, however it did not effect the coarse of the war in the way Stalingrad did. Importance of the Battle of Kursk: http://en.wikipedia.org... -Destroyed large reserves of German armor including many Tiger tanks -Germany suffered some 250,000 casualties -Ended all hopes of a German victory. As we all see, there are more reasons for the importance of Stalingrad than Kursk. One could argue that the battles of Britain and Moscow were more important. Even if the Germans had won at Kursk, they would most likely have still lost the war.
Free Education Lowering Poor Rates

Free education at the four year, private university level is not required. Many social mobility and career opportunities are available through the two year community college, which can be affordable to many Americans. My local community college will cost me around $5,000 USD for tuition. This is very much affordable. Although the job market can be tough, it is not impossible. You can have a good chance of snagging a minimum wage position if you put in a lot of effort in your resume and interview. If you sell yourself really well and do your job well, you won't have trouble. Today, discrimination is still an issue in employment, but it is a lot less common than in the past. I will be using an example. Let's assume I am a Black American Male. I am 18 years of age and reside in a poor community (AKA, "Ghetto") and am fresh out of a under-performing minority High School. I live at home with my mother and father, who both work very hard to make ends meet. We don't have a lot of money, but we manage to get by since they both work. Thanks to my hard work and refusal to conform to gang culture that plagues my area, I am able meet the criteria for both merit based and need based aid to my local community college. Now that $5,000 tuition is even more affordable to me. Using a well crafted resume, and selling myself as a young black male, pulling himself out of the ghetto, (and a little luck) I am able to get a minimum wage job. This job pays for my car and gas, so I can get to the college. I stay at home with my parents, to save money. Whatever my scholarships can't pay, my job can. After I finish up my degree, I can now get a higher-paying job. (Same as before, carefully crafted resume, sell yourself, bit of luck, seek affirmative action). This higher paying job allows me to afford my own place, so I can get out of the "ghetto". If wanted to advance even further, I can continue my education using this higher paying job. The job would allow me to pay loans to go to a 4 year university if I so wished. I could also just keep working and not continue my education. As you can see above, it is entirely possible and feasible to climb the social class ladder without free education. Many community colleges are relatively inexpensive. Free education at the four year university level would be a costly program, simply adding on to the growing national debt. I will also point out, any able bodied person can join the military in a non combat position to receive the benefits it provides. The military is often very generous with its benefits in exchange for your service, including helping you pay for college. In summary, there are many ways to pay for or receive a college education without a national free college program.
Free Education Lowering Poor Rates

Some households face discrimination by landlords who are unwilling to rent to voucher holders. They do this as an economic advantage because the poor people may fail to pay rent. The main cause of this issue is that people put so much value on money and use money as a way to determine people"s worth. The rich continually have many opportunities to make more money because they use the money they already have to help them, while the poor can"t really do much because they don"t have much money. The poor have many disadvantages while the rich can make sure they get to have advantages. Even if the poor want to start working at a better paying job, the employers , before even looking at their resumes, might judge them for the way they look. They might not have as good of an education as the rich because they couldn"t afford to pay for the college fees. Since they couldn"t get a better education, they can"t get the better paying job. They continue to stay poor. Since people put so much value on money, they think the more money you have, the better you are. It gives the people a feeling of superiority and makes them think that they have to right to look down on the people making less money than them. People with money also tend to have much more power than those who don"t. The ones who don"t want to make sure that they are in favor of the ones that hold the power, so they would also look down on those who make less money than them to show the rich that they are thinking in the same way as them; that the rich are more superior.
Free Education Lowering Poor Rates

I believe that free education can lower poor rates through minor discrimination against the poor. Education or the lack of education is the roots of poverty, so making it available for everyone means that we have already eliminated most of the problem. The other half of the problem lies in the majority of poor people who, given free education, don't take advantage of it and live off of government money. These "lazy" poor people can be solved by a slight form of class discrimination that will be healthy for our economy. Similar to the Poor Laws in England 1839, we will make being poor undesirable by not funding them. This will force them to accept the education or live on the streets. By doing this, we will become more efficient and will improve our overall living conditions and nation.
The McDonalds $1 Menu is a good value

McDonalds has no doubht been apart of America and other countries. With its dollar menu and other foods how can you go wrong? Well i will try to explain that the 1$ menu is infact not a good value. As my opponent said value is a fair return in exchange of money. Most definently it is not a fair exhange. McDonalds has been in America for some time now and look at were we are at. We are the country known to be "Fat" and "Overweight". So when your thinking about that McDonalds and how it is only a 1$ think about what you are eating. I would certainly not mind paying a extra buck for a fruit cup, which is surely much healthier. Now to rebut my opponents contentions. My opponent states that "With salads and yogurt parfaits, with burgers and fries, the dollar menu has it all". I do not know where you live but last time i checked the 1$ menu did not have salads and parfaits on it. Certainly i have not seen a salad or parfait that is 5$ either at a fast food restaraunt. Now when you start bringing up the heart-warming story about the homeless man and the Dollar Menu. I feel quite sad for the homeless man who is already in a struggle, and he had to eat a McDonalds burger. Sure he only spent a dollar but that certainly isnt a fair trade. Remeber we are debating that it is a good value. So let me get this straight? You are saying that a burger and a drink is a good value for 2$? Sure you are getting a burger and a drink but think about what you are eating. It is a little more indepth than you seem to play it as. You get a double burger that is between two buns. It is a small patty that could be played off as just one patty. They arent the most healthiest thing to eat either. Most people in America would rather have good food for more than bad food for less. Your basically implying that it is ok to go cheaper for less as long as it is cheaper. That is not a good theory. You would bring up Dairy Queen. I would never even think about comparing a ice cream cone at DQ, to a ice cream come at McDonalds. Have you ever had a problem at McDonalds with ice-cream before? I have gone there many times trying to get a ice-cream cone and they have said "There machine is broken". Look how far a dollar gets you then. Certainly there is other places with a more valued dollar menu. Just because McDonalds has a bigger list of items does not mean that is is surely a better value. Wendys dollar menu has a double burger on it also. Unlike the Small, shriveled up patty McDonalds gives you Wendys gives you a Mean Double burger. It actually looks like what you payed for! There fries are certainly a better value, and there wraps are healthier than anything on the McDonalds menu. You could even look at Taco bell. I mean a double cheesy beef burrito for 89 cent. Wow i call that a value unlike McDonalds. Just because something is #1 does not mean it is the best value. McDonalds was #1 before the dollar menu, that just helped make America unhealthier than it already was.
smoking ban in public places

I believe that a smoking ban in public places would be good for the smokers them selves and the people around them. If you put a ban on smoking in more public places I believe that the amount of people smoking would go down by a lot. This would limit them to smoke in only certain areas. Which may cause people to stop smoking. This would be safer for the children so they are not around it so much. Also you could raise prices on cigarettes so people might stop buying because of the price. Also If you listed the factors of smoking around places more people might see that and start to quit smoking too. Raise the smoking age limit up to 21. Also having more rules for the cigarette companies to make them a little healthier. That is my stand on smoking.
Sega Genesis is a better gaming system then Ps3

That said I will be making some clarifications/observations about this round in general. = Obervations = First, as my opponent has initiated this debate, he will be holding the burden of proof in showing that the Sega Genesis is a better gaming system than the Ps3. If he is unable to do so then he will lose the debate. Second, the object up for debate here will be the gaming capabilities of these two systems. Not the games, or titles offered on these two systems. Accordingly any arguments that claim that one of these systems offers a better game series should be disregarded completely. = Conclusion = In conclusion, here's to an awesome debate! Good luck to my opponent, and thanks to every-one who takes the time to read.