BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We all have the right to keep and bear arms.

We all have the right to bear arms, isn't that what the U.S Constitution states? So why is it all of a sudden horrible to own a gun. People argue guns kill people, but last time I checked the gun was not going off by itself, they had a hand attached to it and someone pulling the trigger. When people look into the horror stories of owning a gun people only see the negative facts, and now with that in play many people want to ban guns in general. They want to get rid of organizations like the NRA and give people "mental health -checks" to see if they are sane enough to own a gun. Even if you ban guns they are still going to have a way to obtain them illegally. Like the constitution states we all have the right to bear arms, why take the option away now?
We all have the right to keep and bear arms.

But we still don't have the right to bear arms? I would appreciate it if you weren't such a poaching advocate. Ok the NRA leader (Charles Heston) believes all these guns problems are because we have a more mixed ethnicity in the United States. Let me go over the reason you should vote con. I don't support poaching, and I am not racist. One quote pro said was this. " there is a deeper meaning behind the bullets" Are you on acid? I would just like to say to you mghee188, that there are places to help people like you. Poaching is a curable problem, but stupidity isn't. Guess you will have to live with that. Around 4:40 is where Charles Heston makes the NRA sound so great. http://www.youtube.com...
We all have the right to keep and bear arms.

Well I have also read the U.S Constitution and in my reading the Second Amendment had two clauses. The first clause being the Militia clause which you mentioned - Militia Clause (A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.) Except the Second Amendment also holds the clause Right to Arms Clause - Right to Arms Clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.) What people don't realize is many pass this clause over because they are more concerned with the security of a free state, but I assure you it's in the text. If you would like to see where I obtained my information from here is the website. http://faculty.ncwc.edu... If no one had guns, bear arms, or any weapons, and were educated, they wouldn't want to kill anyone. So there would be no reason for a militia. --> So what your basically saying if we had no guns there would be no war, so having no guns would stop the violence? I would beg to differ. People who are educated would have to realize the guns are not making people violent, people have a natural aggression anyway - regardless without guns people are still going to find the need to argue, be right, and fight for whatever they believe in. Also many people do not own guns just for killing, there is a deeper meaning behind the bullets for example take the NRA. The NRA isn't encouraging anyone to hunt they are encouraging people to fight and protect the second amendment and our rights as citizens and civilians to bear arms.
We all have the right to keep and bear arms.

I have read the U.S. Constitution, and this is what the second amendment says. "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" So where does it say something about owning a fire arm? It says we have the right to have bear arms? If no one had guns, bear arms, or any weapons, and were educated, they wouldn't want to kill anyone. So there would be no reason for a militia.
The Government Should Remove The "In God We Trust" From Our Money

Okay the problem here seems to be that you’re interpreting God to be religion in this context. This policy isn’t referring to God when it mentions religion, it’s talking about the congregations that worship God… This should be obvious, It doesn’t just say “religion”, it says “establishment of religion”, as in the churches. The purpose of the policy was not to completely remove religion from state, but to keep congress from favoring one denomination over the other, which is why it specifies “establishment” instead of religion altogether. The purpose of it was not to remove God, but to remove favoritism between the churches. I view it to be a perversion of the policy if it is used to remove God. It might be true that America is not technically a Christian nation, but to assert it to be a secular nation is downright WRONG. It’s certainly is a religious nation. Even in our own declaration of independence it states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” In “God we Trust” explains our American heritage perfectly, because it’s the truth. Seriously, you’re griping about being forced to use money for things you don’t believe in? Dude, my tax money is being used to fund public education, and they teach uniformitarianism and evolution there (and a list of other things I don’t believe in), something I detest and view it to be lies, it’s a form of secular oppression to me. Welcome to America, the place where the government takes your money and funds things you hate, rather your religious or not. It’s not a failure to acknowledge or misrepresent, it’s more like flat out rejection. The declaration of independence clearly rejects atheism, so the government should as well because atheism is anti-american, at least as far as the founding fathers are concerned. The American government should represent our American heritage, Atheism is not American at all. If you find this offensive, I’m not sorry at all, us being a religious nation is our identity and heritage given by our forefathers, it’s what it means to be American, and that I’m happy for. If you hate it, there’s plenty of other nations out there for you to migrate to, just saying, I have no interest in backstabbing our forefathers whose God made this nation great.
The Government Should Remove The "In God We Trust" From Our Money

Wow that was an incredibly weak argument. Just because it does not endorse a specific religion like Christianity doesn't make it non-religious. The concept of god is a religious concept and according to the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The reason God should not be mention in our money is because some of us believe in more than one god, and some of us don't even believe in a god like myself. The Government is supposed to represent all of its citizens irrespective of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. By respecting a religious stance the government misrepresents and fails to acknowledge those with different beliefs by upholding one religious view over others. This is a form of religious oppression because those of us with different beliefs are forced to use money that displays views we don't believe in This is why it's illegal to have religious symbols on public property, and why public school can't endorse any religion or religious view. The US government obeys the establishment clause in most cases just not when it comes to our currency.
The Government Should Remove The "In God We Trust" From Our Money

There is no problem with me interpreting God to be religious in context because God is a religious concept. To say God is not a religious concept is just plain wrong. The definition of religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." You can't separate God from being a religious concept. It's semantically incorrect. When the establishment clause says the establishment of religion it's talking about the government establishing a religion or a religious state, which the establishment clause forbids. This is not exclusive to just Christian denominations it's any religious view. America is a secular nation. the definition of secular is "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis". This is why teachers in public schools can't promote any religious view because public schools are government institutions. and also why public properties can't have religious symbols on them. The phrase "In God in trust" was placed on our money, and pledge in the 1950's in response to the cold war. Before that it was well understood doing so was against that the establishment clause. It is okay for the government to force people to pay taxes in order to fund public education as long as they teach facts only. If the Government didn't have people pay taxes to fund education, the literacy rate in the US would dramatically decrease. Unfortunately for you evolution happens to be a scientific fact, and so does uniformitarianism. And why are you whining about secular oppression if you believe that the US isn't secular. The Declaration of Independence does not reject atheism, and even if it did, the Declaration of Independence is not the Fundamental law of the land, the Constitution is. The Declaration of Independence is just a document that decreed The American colonies' independence from Britain. It's basically nothing more than a historical document. In addition the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to free The Us colonies from the oppression of Great Britain (including religious oppression). The US is all about protecting the minorities, this is why Blacks were given the same rights as whites even though whites made up a majority of the country.
Interaction between Native language and Foreign language in learning

I accept. CON doesn't lay out an explicit resolution, so he gives me the option to choose whether a foreign or native language is more important in learning. He also doesn't tell us what we're learning, so he leaves that open as well to, simply, learning anything. I'm going to argue that native language is more important in the case of emigrating to another country. A native is defined as " associated with the country, region, or circumstances of a person's birth," according to Google's dictionary. In other words, if someone is born in Italy and moves to the United States, Italian is their native language. The reason for this is, obviously, that upon moving to said country, they have no knowledge of the foreign language--in this case, English is the foreign language for the Italian immigrant--so it's impossible to learn anything in English; rather, lessons would necessarily need to be transmitted in Italian. Further, even if that immigrant wanted to learn English, it would be necessary to learn English FROM Italian, making the native language significantly more important.
Sport is not for women

Womens sport continues to be promoted by such organisations as the IOC. The IOC is corrupt. It is an unnatural position to encourage the Idea that we are equal and sport is proof of that. Watching two ladies punching each other at a boxing event is unedifying to all Involved. Contact sports are a male preserve. Ask any neutral who they would pay to watch play sport and I doubt youd find one female in an International top 20. Its wrong to force a feminist agenda onto sport. Sport is for men and womens participation should be limited to execise and spectating.
Sport is not for women

Before I begin, I (once again) ask for evidence to support your claims. They mean nothing without proper backing either by scientists, data, acclaimed websites, books, etc. Therefore they are dismissible before we even begin. I will refute your argument in two parts. One; the "nature and nurture" part and two; identifying the "dominant male for breeding purposes" as well as your arguments regarding evolution. Fist, nature and nurture. From what I understand, you are claiming a women's primary role is to nurture the offspring to ensure survival of the species. Although you say this is "the way nature made us", I see no evidence, scientific or otherwise, supporting it. And while I agree that perhaps several thousand years ago, this may have been a mutually beneficial partnership for all sides involved, it is now not only unnecessary, but (like I mentioned in my previous arguments) a grossly chauvinistic viewpoint to take. In our modern society today, there is no reason whatsoever to prevent women from partaking in competitive sports. We live in a word of scientific advancement, extraordinary education, and longer lifespans than ever before. [1] To assume that because thousands of years ago women played a submissive role in our species that they should continue playing said role is both unrealistic and insulting. Next, why don't we move onto your arguments involving evolution. To put it simply, they are irrational at best. Claiming that it goes "against evolution to watch female 'athletes' battering each other" is absurd. The theory of evolution (which, I am assuming we both agree upon) states that natural selection ensures the fittest and best species to survive and prosper due to both external (environment, predators, etc.) and internal (mutations, genetics) factors. I am unsure exactly what you're claiming in this argument. Please provide both clarification and evidence. You further your claim by stating men are the dominant species. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) While I agree they may have the body structure better suited to physical labor, this doesn't prove their dominance. And then you speak of "breeding purposes". Not to be rude, but I'm pretty sure you need a reality check. We live in the 21st century. We have landed on the moon. We can literally learn anything, ANYTHING we want to with a few clicks or a mouse. Breeding purposes really don't apply here. Not only is athleticism becoming less and less of a factor when looking for a "mate", but with the amount of children currently in adoption centers or on the streets, we really don't need any more "breeding." To sum up: Neither the nurturing argument nor the evolution argument holds any water without proper evidence. Even if they did have evidence, they are both illogical and unrealistic. From a moral and logical standpoint, it is clear that sports are for women. [1] http://www.ssa.gov...
Sport is not for women

Since we are still expected to finish this debate, I'll post a rebuttal to your previous contentions. You argued that (1) women are less competitive than men and (2) sports are not "natural" for women." I'll address both of these. First, can you please show evidence proving women are less competitive? And can you elaborate on this statement? (I'm assuming you mean sports, right...?) And before we continue this debate, here is the definition of "sports": an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment ... Let me know if you agree with this term. Now, moving on to your second contention involving gladiators and the "not of their nature" bit. So, are you aware there were, in fact, matriarchal societies in which women were the dominant gender? (ie- they were the hunters, fighters, etc.) [1] And in Sparta, for example, girls and boys excersized unclothed outdoors together. This was seen as not only acceptable, but encouraged as well. While several stigmas of the time were still fairly male-dominated, women still held important roles and were expected to be as physically fit as the men. [2] And discovered in 1996 and announced in 2000, archaeologists found proof that there were, surprisingly, female gladiators in ancient Rome. [3] While it's true they didn't gain the respect of men due to the patriarchal society and social stigmas of the time, they did fight and some rose in status due to their fights to the death. [1] http://mentalfloss.com... [2] http://www.ancient.eu.com... [3] http://www.ancient.eu.com...
Sport is not for women

Okay, why don't we examine this debate from first a moral standpoint and then a logical one. The value I am basing my debate on is EQUALITY. First, the moral standpoint. Women pretending to be men? No, we're not. Quite honestly, I find it a bit insulting. I am all for diversity. Sure, women are different. That's great. But going so far as banning women from participating? That is not only irrational, but unfair as well. "Separate but equal" was a term coined in the 60s to promote racial segregation. As we know now, this is not fair, equal, or, to put it simply, 'okay.' In fact, going so far as to ban a person from sports due to organs between their legs is both morally reprehensible and an unfair act protected by a thin barrier of "logic". See, statistically speaking, women account for 78% of healthcare works. [1] But should we ban men from entering this job? Of course not. Next, why don't we move on to the logical standpoint.Before I begin, can you provide evidence from your claim that "most men don't think womens sport means diddle squat apart from...". Even if you can provide evidence, WHY does it matter? See, while I understand that men's sports, historically speaking, have brought in more revenue than women's, this is NOT the sole purpose of sports. Like I already mentioned, having superior ability, winning, or sex organs doesn't constitute a valid reason for participating (or not participating) in an activity. Sports can be used to express oneself, to stay physically active, to bond with friends, to have fun in a friendly competition, and even to burn off excess energy. For many, it's even a form of therapy. And who are you to deny women the right to any of these outlets? Furthermore, you argue against "political correct[ness]". Can you elaborate on this so I can gain a clearer understanding?[1] http://www.forbes.com...
Sport is not for women

We have boxing now that is Inclusive of women. Rugby also promotes womens competitions. Should we continue on this parallel journey of equality? My argument is that no we shouldn't. We are different but equal and Dykes pretending to be men should not be encouraged as being OK. When a Woman can run a 10 second sprint get back to me. Its not that Interesting. If you are not aware , most men don't think womans sport means diddly squat apart from looking at that Russian girls legs at Wimbledon. The politicaly correct continue to force feed the Idea that we are equaly as Interesting on the field of sport , but we are not.
Sport is not for women

To recap this debate: Sports are for men and women equally, due to both equality between the sexes and the very definition of sports itself. Furthermore, neither the "nurturing" argument nor "evolution" argument holds any water, both from a logical and scientific perspective. I proved my position through logical, ethical, and factual means while simultaneously proving my opponent's arguments wrong. Clearly, women have not only the fundamental right to play sports (whether it be purely recreational or competitive) but are also meant to play sports as the equals of men.
Internet Privacy (Governments have no limiting power of cyberspace)

My goal for this speech is to bring up my point to show you how in the real world, my side is more preferable than Pro's.In this debate it has been set up under the idea that there are two extremes, the first being that governments should have no power regarding content on cyberspace whatsoever, and the second being that governments should have all power to do anything on the internet that they desire. I would like to point out a middle ground, which is what my case centres around, Healthy Moderation. The reason that healthy moderation is the most desirable and good is because the government needs to set down some laws to keep people and property safe, like laws against cyberbullying, piracy, and terrorism. These laws are perfectly permissible, desirable, and legitimate and to enforce those laws it requires limiting your power to some degree. Pro's case is basically making two extremes, when in reality the government has some power over cyberspace, just not all power.I'm now open for rebuttles.
Internet Privacy (Governments have no limiting power of cyberspace)

The government of any country should not be able to limit anything being posted, or received from cyberspace, until they pay for the specific domain of the website. A. Regulating what people may see as well as say goes against human rights, and in the Unite States of America for any American who may come across this, this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it goes against the first amendment in the Bill of Rights which states every person shall have the right to free speech B. In the case of hiding pornography from children, the parent at home with the computer can simply use a proxy server and have everything filtered through there. The reason this statement was made is that in many of my other debates I've taken place making the same argument against many people used the fact that governments should stop children from being able to access pornography. C. If a government were to take any action on a website, it would be illegal as they have no right to the domain. Let's run a hypothetical here. Let's say a website were to be taken down by the U.S government for whatever reason the government decided to take it down. If it were to be a website that they had no right towards, then that is illegal on the governments sake as they have no right to the domain. Now lets say a website were to have profane words amongst the text, and the government were to either replace the characters with '*' then that would be incriminating as it goes against humans right to free speech.
Eminem Should Be Avoided as a Role Model

Well, it seems Pro has forfeited round 2 :( I hope he comes back in time to finish this debate with me.... I look forward to seeing your rebuttals at any rate :D again, thanks for this opportunity to debate a topic I love! >Drugs, alchohol, and abuse< It is a well known fact that Eminem, or his evil alter-ego Slim Shady, used to be a drug an user and an alcoholic. However, after treatment, he has been clean since. Although this seems like a negative point against my position, it's actually the opposite. The fact that he is no longer on drugs and has stopped over drinking sets a great example for kids. Showing that if you set out for a goal and try hard enough, you will succeed. That makes him a wonderful role model, contrary to the resolution. He is also a loving father towards his daughter, Hailie, by dedicating many songs to her, supposedly. Unlike his parents, who mistreated him according to his songs, he treats his daughter and her (?) cousin very well and did everything he could for them. >Awards< Eminem won 13 Grammy Awards, more than most other singers. He was also nominated twice for the Emmy Awards and both times, he won. He has also received an Academy Award. If this isn't something to look up to, I'm not sure what is. He also won the American Music Award 14 times, and the Billboard Music Awards 17 times. Even the Brit Award, he won four times, and was also given the MTV Europe Music Award 15 times. And that's not even all of the awards he's won. He literally started at the bottom of the social pyramid and worked his way up to his current position, a well known pop and rap artist. >Sources< I typed this up in the notes section of my phone, and somehow, my sources got deleted :( But if you wikisearch Eminem, you'll find a chart of his awards, which is where I got my list from :D And because I'm stupid and procrastinated til the last second and then got my phone taken, that's all I'm gonna use as my points :( I know this is a lot to ask, but please pardon any mistakes, as i typed this up entirely on my phone.... Glhf to my opponent! :D"