BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Militaristic style weapons ban

First off, I would like to refute the argument that weapon ownership among civilians would prevent tyranny. Our military has unmanned aerial vehicles capable of precision bombing - no civilian would own a flak turret, and an AR-15 wouldn't help stop a drone. The only practical way to win a revolt against a tyrannical government would be how quickly military-grade hardware can be acquired - while owning what is now considered higher-end of civilian-grade weaponry might help in this regard, the odds would be stacked in such a way that, in order to win any battle, civilians would practically have to have some sort of tactical advantage (e.g. stealth).That being said, I see no practical use for the kind of firearms that were subject to the assault weapons ban which was proposed in Congress which could not be fulfilled by another firearm. I feel that a handgun would better fulfill the role of home defense (since it is easier to use a handgun indoors). I also feel that a bolt-action or lever-action rifle would be much better for hunting, since not only would more kinetic energy go to the bullet than a blowback semi-automatic rifle, but it would also encourage trigger discipline for the shooter, as well as giving greater satisfaction for successful hits, due to the slower refire rate.I might also want to correct you where you said that the rifle doesn't determine much about the effectiveness. While it is mostly true that a rifle would determine little about the amount of force applied to a bullet (unless it is a blowback), various things such as barrel length would affect things quite a bit. There's a reason why sawed-off shotguns are illegal in most states. The stability of the barrel would also come into play when determining what kinds of ammunition a gun can handle without undergoing an excessive amount of stress (using overpressurized rounds, for example).I do support private ownership of firearms for sporting and self-defense, but, to be honest, I don't see anything to justify use of the weapons covered by the assault weapons ban. Their roles are easily filled by other weapons, and a government takeover's success would be determined by how much military-grade hardware is acquired, not civilian-grade.
Militaristic style weapons ban

I apologize for the lack of argument last round, I have been busy finishing up school. First of all, the AR-15's only difference from a Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle is simple aesthetics. Getting rid of a gun for its aesthetics does not help anything. the power of a gun, is in the cartridge. The rifle determines little about the velocity and force of the resulting bullet. the power comes from the powder that is inside the cartridge. I would like to clarify some terms before the debate gets too far, assault weapon, is ANY semi-automatic firearm, handguns, rifles, or shotguns. an assault rifle, is a rifle with select fire, one that you choose automatic, or semi-automatic, and sometimes burst fire. Automatic and burst fire rifles are illegal to own without a stage 3 firearms license, also known as the federal firearms license, and it is very hard to obtain. it makes zero sense to ban militaristic style weapons, when the only reason they are disliked is because they look scary. they are usually less accurate, and less comfortable than the normal, everyday hunting rifle, but they can still be effective for hunting varmints and coyotes with their small caliber bullet (the same caliber most people choose as a starter gun for its lacking kick and minor power). Militaristic style weapons good investments, and excellent recreational rifles. my grandma purchased a Colt AR-15 for $1,200, and in only a few months, sold it to an eager buyer for double. The only thing restrictions here would do is limit freedom, and in the United States, that is not what the country was built on. Another thing we were built on, was that the citizens should own more power than the government. That means, that if all balances and checks fail, the citizens should be able to retake the government. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence, JULY 4, 1776 In order to overthrow a government, we would need to be armed with the best combat weapons available to citizens. banning these would be following the trend of most dictators and totalitarians who have banned guns throughout history. A recent example of gun control, is Britain. They disarmed their citizens, and sliced up all of the firearms. The violent crime rate is now up 77% since the gun ban, and the increase in knife injury has caused doctors to call for a ban on point-tipped knives. Banning an implement does not halt violence, and banning militaristic style weapons leaves many equal alternatives.
Militaristic style weapons ban

If accepted, we will be debating weather or not there should be a ban on guns like an AR-15, AK-47, and other such weapons. 4000 character limit, and five rounds. This intro, will not contain an argument, if it is accepted, i will make my first argument as a rebuttal. I am very passionate about this topic, and i hope that someone will accept who feels passionately about the contrary and will make for a tough opponent
Abortion

Even assuming what Con says is true (which I disagree with), the argument is very simple. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive. Although the fetus has control of its own body, it cannot force someone else to use their own body in order to survive. Having sex does NOT mean that someone is prepared to bare the responsibilities of being a mother. Sex is healthy and on everyone's mind, regardless of whether or not they want motherhood. If you drive and have an accident where you are badly injured, should you not go to the hospital for help because you "accepted" the possibility that by driving you could be in a terrible accident?
Abortion

I'll start off with simple reasoning. The statement you made is true, every woman has rights to her own body and what she wishes to do with it. Although during pregnancy it's not only her body which is being affected. There is a fetus within her which is slowly developing and will soon emerge as an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING, 9 months later. I believe there are some exceptions when it comes to abortion, especially in the case of rape or where either the woman or the child is in danger. Those are the only two legitimate reasons for abortion. Otherwise every other case involves the woman to consent, meaning she is prepared to bare the responsibilities of being a mother and knows the risk that comes with having intercourse for recreational purposes, if that was the intention. After that, the child within her is no longer her own. Although it may still be in developing stage, you cannot avoid the fact that if let go, the fetus will grow into an infant once at birth.
fun rap battle

the name's chunk dirty that's dirty chunk in spanish imma hit you so hard you gon' need a bandage! i got yo' girlfriend at my house eatin' my swag sandwich! crowd: ooooooooooohhhh im 'bout to slice you up like a slice of pizza guess who i met last week tho (who'd you meet?) wiz khalifa! crowd: ooooooooooohhhh you may be super but i'm the hot one i go to the toilet and take a hot one and i eat pockets hot ones! you got some!? i don't think so but i'll pick some up at costco 'cause errybody knows that cost-co keeps the cost low! crowd: ooooooooooohhhh
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

As I stated before, not all human actions cause moral consequences. When you murder someone, you do cause them pain and that does have a moral consequence but that does not include every single activity that you do. But what if the person you murdered is a bad person and your protecting yourself by self defense? What are you supposed to do? Just stand there and let someone else try murder you? Socrates did not think he was causing harm by cross-examining his accusers, but he really was causing no harm. He only cross-examined his accuser because Socrates was being accused of things that were not so serious. The point is that not everything you do has a moral consequence. Going to do your hair, going shopping, etc. These things that pertain to yourself cause no harm to no one.
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

When you commit crimes such as murder, or popping a check, or stealing someone"s identity at first you"re so happy but later you feel the pain and the people that you did this against feel it. When you murder someone it is obvious they feel pain but also it takes a toll on their family and friends and hurts them emotionally. While when you pop a check when you finally get caught you do prison time and have to pay back the money. Lastly, when you steals someone identity everything you do affects them you give them bad credit, people think they are doing the horrible things that your actually doing. Even when Socrates was teaching and doing his examinations he felt he wasn't hurting anyone but was. Socrates did that because he caused a change in his society and the higher people didn't want change. He changed the way people thought and brought upon himself enemies.
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

How do we know what God is actually thinking? The bible does not give all the answers the our current problems. If someone were to get an abortion, it is because they do not feel fit to be a parent. This affects no one because the only other party involved is the mom and the fetus. At this point, the fetus is no bigger than a blueberry. There is no way that can cause pain to the fetus A couple that cannot conceive can always go try and get another baby. Getting someone tea is no moral consequence because they can try to get it themselves, drink something else, have someone else get it for them, or simply just not drink tea at all. If we go around thinking that every single little thing affects someone or something in a moral way, then there is no point of leaving your house because at some point you may end up becoming paranoid thinking about all the people you affect. Writing a book is of no moral consequence. This affects no one because no one is expecting you to write anything. You are doing it for your own enjoyment. If you have nothing else to do and you want to spend your day lying on the couch and watching tv, that affects no one because you already had nothing to do in the first place and just want to relax. Not everything will have a moral consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

In order for your car to have to get fixed someone must have had to make the car and that wasn't pleasant for them. Children making your clothes in foreign countries aren"t happy at all but they have to do it in order to survive. Kids are underpaid and work in brutal conditions. When we relax at home it may be causing pleasure to ourselves and seem as if we are not hurting anyone, but what if someone we see every day expected a tea from you in the morning. They wouldn"t get that tea that morning and it will cause them pain. When women get an abortion she is causing herself pain and pleasure for some women. This is so because she may believe it is the right thing to do for her. However, her body is going to go through hell once she gets her abortion. If we bring religion into this you"re punishing yourself and hurting God"s feelings because he doesn't believe it is right to get an abortion. You might have just killed the person to cure HIV/AIDS. You"re causing pain to so many couples who want to have children but can"t because of certain circumstances in their life. Rappers rapping about how women are hoe"s and tricks degrade women. Some women today feel the need that they have to wear certain things or act a certain way to get a man"s attention. Even some young men think it"s cool to act a certain way towards women because they look up to rappers and if rappers are doing it why can"t they do it. People don"t see it that way until their loved ones end up in prison, or 6 feet under. Everything people do has a consequence whether it be physical or mental.
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

But not every single human action has a moral consequence. what about when you are trying to fix your car? Or decide to go out shopping at the mall with a friend. There is no consequence in trying to fix your car because it will not affect no one else. There is no moral consequence in going shopping with a friend because you are going to buy things you need or just to go out for the day. All human actions have moral consequences, but since many of these actions do not cause pain unto others, not all human actions are going to have moral consequences. What about when you have a day off and decide to stay home and relax? That has no consequence because it is not causing any type of pain to anyone. It has no moral consequence because you are home relaxing, not disturbing anyone, or causing pain to anyone. If anything, it is just causing pleasure for yourself.
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

Human action does have moral consequences even if we do not see it. when you litter you don't think anything of it. you just think your dropping your trash on the floor but you do not realize you your killing the ozone layer with your waste,the ozone layer tearing is causing the ice to melt and global warming which is killing our planet,eventually that trash falls into the sewer and ends up in the ocean then it causes animals in the sea to die because the water is toxic or they eat the trash. Human actions always have consequences it may not be seen right away the smallest action can have the biggest impact and cause pain to not one thing but many things. Just as when we kill animals, animals are becoming less and less as we know it. The Bald Eagle is a rare bird to see because of the killing of them. People want to stuff them and have them as a collection is pleasure to them but causing the extinction of them.Buying groceries is something someone needs to survive but think about the animals that were killed or even the person who had to package the food they aren't too happy about that. And it is causing you pain just as much pleasure because you now have less money.
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

Everything that a human doe, does not have a moral consequence. For example, running to the supermarket to go get groceries. This is a common everyday activity that does not have any type of consequence because it does not affect any one in anyway. This is of no value to no one, except for the person running around for the groceries. Since these actions do not affect anyone, it is not causing any pain. Neither may it be causing pleasure. 1. If you have an every day activity that you do, such as running errands, it has no moral value to no one. 2. Therefore it cannot affect no one in anyway because these actions will be of no pain to anyone else. 3. All human actions do not have any type of moral consequence 4. Since there is no pain, there is no intensity or duration of pain. 5. Therefore, no human actions have any type of moral consequence If all human actions have no type of moral consequence, then no human actions have no type of moral consequence
There is no possibility of a human action that has no consequence

The principle of utility states that all actions or behaviors are right as long as they produce happiness or pleasure. However if an action is not causing happiness nor pleasure it is causing pain. I argue that all actions have moral consequences weather we see it immediately or not. All human action causes pain and pleasure to someone or something: 1.Our actions affect people around us even if we do not realize. 2.All of one"s action depends on how they will feel after they do this act. 3.An action is considered wrong if it does not produce pleasure but pain. 4.Our actions are considered through: how long the action may last, how the pleasure will occur, how long will the pleasure last through the action, how many people will be affected by this action, will any pain occur after this act is in place, will other happiness and pleasures happen after this act. 5.There is always moral consequence to actions which we commit. There will always be consequences whether it is pain or pleasure when an act is done.
Werewolves Should Receive Equal Rights

Though that huge picture was unnecessary. Werewolves should receive equal rights to humans. They should be able to marry the same people, go to the same schools, and drink the same booze. Here is why: 1. Werewolves are people, too! Read the definition of werewolf that I have provided (and my opponent did not dispute): Werewolf: mythological and folkloric human with the ability to shape-shift into a wolf after being placed under a curse. This transformation is associated with the appearance of the full moon; vulnerable to silver bullets and arrows and cause others to become werewolves by biting them. I highlighted the word “human” because, unless my opponent has any evidence suggesting otherwise, humans are people. “Person” has many definitions, but we are going to use “a human as distinguished from an animal or thing. ” [1] Well, when the full moon is not out, a werewolf fulfills that definition. And in a free society, which consists of persons otherwise known as individuals [2], guarantees rights to those individuals. However, my opponent will obviously start to question the werewolf’s personhood, especially around full moon time. I will admit that werewolves are not people as wolves under the full moon. However, this brings me to my second point: 2. Werewolves do not have a choice In most works of fiction that includes werewolves, including works as old as “Bisclavret” (which was written about 1175)[3] and as new as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [4] describes the transformation into the werewolf as an unwanted affair. The definition also describes two scenarios which are not exactly desired: being cursed and bitten. It is unreasonable to punish the lycanthropes for crimes that they did not commit. 3. Werewolves are not always people This matters because the werewolf, when as a person, does not want to harm anybody. And trying to sentence a werewolf for something that he/she did as a non-person, and therefore not able to comprehend what they were doing, would be like sentencing a regular wolf for murder charges. It would be illogical and Kafka-esque, the only difference being that for most of the time the werewolf can feel remorseful-and wronged. 4. Werewolves can benefit society I have explained in the above that werewolves are people. People can benefit society. So it is only natural to say that werewolves can benefit society, maybe not as much as normal humans, but it would be nonsensical to bar them rights, and thereby harm society. I hand off this debate to my opponent. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Werewolves Should Receive Equal Rights

Full resolution: In a Free Society, Werewolves Should Receive Equal Rights to Normal Humans*THIS IS A SERIOUS DEBATE! **Note* Werewolves are assumed to be real for the purposes of this debate. Rules:I will support the resolution, and my opponent will negate the resolution1st round is for acceptance and the defining of terms. Debating begins round 2Burden of Proof is shared. In other words, I have to prove my case and my opponent must prove his.8,000 Character limit, but conciseness is urged.72 hour gap max between arguments, but promptness is urged.3 month voting period. Semantic arguments are prohibited. Humor, even though this is a serious debate, is appreciated. Otherwise, standard operating procedure applies. Definitions:Free: existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community . http://dictionary.reference.com...Werewolf: mythological or folkloric human with the ability to shape shift into into a wolf after being placed under a curse. This transformation is associated with the appearance of the full moon; vulnerable to silver bullets and silver arrows and can cause others to become werewolves by biting them. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Should: must; ought . http://dictionary.reference.com...Receive: to have (something) bestowed, conferred, etc . http://dictionary.reference.com...Equal: as great as; the same as . http://dictionary.reference.com...Rights: that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Normal: conforming to the standard or the common type . http://dictionary.reference.com...Humans: Homo Sapiens . http://dictionary.reference.com...If my opponent finds any of the following to be unfit in any way, he or she may give an alternate definition (that is within reason).
the siangie twins look better than lisa and lena

They do not look better. The siangie twins are very nice looking. Lisa and lena are pure gutter rubbish and they shouldn't even be put in the same class with the siangie twins. The siangie twins are the epitome of beauty. They are the most beautiful beings on Earth. Lisa and lena are nothing more than frauds. The siangie twins are almost angelic in their appearance, and if you don't think so then you are a deterrent to the justice of mankind. Who are these people, again?
America should stay out of Israel-Iran relations, because both sides are wrong.

I'm going to keep this short, sweet, and to the point. I have three main points that are hard to refute. Just for clarity, I am not an anti-Semite, nor am I a subscriber to Islam. 1) The Palestinians are correct when they say that the current state of Israel was artificially created. What I mean by this is that it wasn't fought for, handed over in a treaty, or any other way of naturally gaining land. The western countries gave this land to the Jewish people after the Holocaust, to which those who lived in the region had nothing to do with. 2) Getting in these relations only cause problems for the United States; it does little good. A majority of anti-American groups don't hate the fact that we're America, they dislike the fact that we like Israel. Staying out of these relations would save us billions of dollars and would keep Americans safe around the world. What does Iran have against us other than the fact we are strong supporters of Israel? 3) Both sides are to blame. It would be different if one side was brutally killing citizens in rocket attacks, or if one side was threatening to wipe the other off the earth, but both are. Both instigate the others. Both have threatened nuclear war, and from history we learn that Israel is not scared of going to war. Israel is just as wrong as Iran is. In conclusion, it makes no sense for the USA to pick sides in this increase of tension.