BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Rights & Control

Given the long history of horrific shoot outs and accidents, it's been long since known that people have more than shown that guns shouldn't be an easy thing to obtain. I wouldn't go as far as eliminating them in their entirety, but I would definitely say that it should be much harder to obtain and no where should it be allowed to sell without check ups. I don't mean background checks and old psychological evaluations, but rather go through a fresh psyche evaluation before purchasing. Background checks for sure should remain as they are, but they aren't enough. Anyone can fool background checks. However, it's hard to fool a well trained, super keen psychologist. Yes it costs money to get a check up, but maybe a lower price can be offered for this kind of thing. After all, it's for the sake of eliminating shootings, thus eliminating the increasingly large fatalities caused by mad men who've come across these weapons with ease. My main points in this case would be the following: - Make it harder to obtain - Laws against selling weapons without proper background checks and up to date psyche evaluations - Laws against reselling your bought weapon to just anyone without check ups. Want to resell your weapon? Sell it back to a proper gun shop. - Make it harder to buy weapons from just any gun shop or eliminate gun shops who fail to follow protocol - Military Grade weapons should remain military-grade; No civilian should have access to military grade weapons in the first place. A shotgun and single fire rifles, pistols and such are more than enough for self defense. - Reshape gun laws. No 18 year old should have access to a shotgun. How does it make sense to buy a shotgun, but not a handgun at the age of 18? - Properly educate the nation on guns. Be harsher and blunt to those who want to own or handle guns. Show them what they could cause if they decide they want to shoot up a school or place. Show them the pain people feel from those kinds of actions, while studying their minds. As of right now, this is all I can think of. I will probably bring up more points as the debates ensue. Please keep this clean and mature. I'm an open mind and patient person!
Blue should be legal to wear in public.

El f"nec (Fennecus zerda), feneco o zorro del desierto, es una especie de mam"fero carn"voro de la familia Canidae que habita en el desierto del S"hara y Arabia.3 Con sus caracter"sticas orejas, se trata de la especie m"s peque"a de su familia. Su pelaje, orejas y funci"n renal est"n adaptadas a las condiciones f"sicas del desierto: temperaturas extremas y escasez h"drica. Las orejas le sirven como sistema de ventilaci"n y refrigeraci"n de la sangre que le ayuda a soportar las elevadas temperaturas y el clima extremo del desierto. El t"rmino f"nec proviene del "rabe, que significa zorro, y el ep"teto espec"fico, zerda, que proviene del griego, se refiere a su seco h"bitat (xeros).4 - Wikipedia you're wrong
Success is unlikely without attending high school.

I thank MouthWash for his arguments."Fvck this sh1t."If you really want to, go ahead."I'm not playing your game. I said "make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful."You said "I will take the position that it is very hard to make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful." You did not say success is defined as "it is very hard to make money, gain employment or otherwise become successful." You may believe you were inferring a definition. But, you were not. You never defined your terms. Simple as that. In a debate, you cannot rely on your opponent to interpret and twist your words to fit what you want them to say."I EXPECT A RESPONSIBLE DEBATER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE TOPIC RELEVANT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD DEFY THE INCREDIBLY SIMPLE RULE THAT SAYS "NO GODDAMN SEMANTICS." YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CHOICES AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THIS DEBATE IS OVER AND THE RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT MAINTAIN A RELEVANT ARGUMENT."Despite the annoying caps, how is what I argued irrelevant exactly? I argued you can reach success. Simple as that. I did not defy the rule that says "no semantics" as I was the only one to place terms. Simply because you do not like what I argued does not place it under the banner of semantics. You also told me what to argue, "Con will take the position that high school attendance is not generally necessary for success." Once again, how did I not argue that? My argument is completely relevant to the resolution. And, once again, I shall say, you never provided an objective basis to measure success."But how dare you to even think about accusing me of creating a forum topic to cheat?"What was I supposed to think exactly? You create a forum topic which just so happens to coincide with this debate?"You lost an easy win and I lost whatever advice someone might have given me. Next time, think things through when you spot an "easy win" because you might end up looking like a pathetic d0uchebag when you can't even debate properly."1. It hasn't reached the voting period, so bare assertion fallacy.2. You didn't lose any advice, see your forum for more details.3. I did think things through. It took me a while to construct that argument.4. Thank you for the ad hominem. I take insults that people give to me through the internet very seriously (sarcasm)5. I have been here on DDO longer than you and participated in more debates. Simply because you do not like what I have to say, does not justify blatant insults.
Success is unlikely without attending high school.

Fuck this shit. I'm not playing your game. I said "make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful." I was INFERRING the definition of successful by talking ABOUT making money or getting a job. I even talked about "preparation for adult responsibilities" which anyone should have been able to understand as meaning jobs or money. I EXPECT A RESPONSIBLE DEBATER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE TOPIC RELEVANT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD DEFY THE INCREDIBLY SIMPLE RULE THAT SAYS "NO GODDAMN SEMANTICS." YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CHOICES AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THIS DEBATE IS OVER AND THE RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT MAINTAIN A RELEVANT ARGUMENT. But how dare you to even think about accusing me of creating a forum topic to cheat? I was prepared to concede once I had some advice but you went ahead and fucked the whole thing up. You lost an easy win and I lost whatever advice someone might have given me. Next time, think things through when you spot an "easy win" because you might end up looking like a pathetic douchebag when you can't even debate properly.
Success is unlikely without attending high school.

I will take the position that it is very hard to make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful in the US without attending formal high school or doing any other type of schooling instead. For instance, using online schooling, night schooling, tutoring or anything similar as your argument is forbidden. That includes college.Con will take the position that high school attendance is not generally necessary for success. Please note that while the scenarios we will be discussing naturally exclude school as a possibility, that does not prevent self-education or any other type of preparation for adult responsibilities. I want details. Cite statistics; give multiple reasons. Nothing is off of the table.Rules 1. Please have typing experience and provide sources.2. Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.3. No lawyering, trolling, or semantics.4. The BOP is shared, and Con should make the first argument.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned

Vote for the Affirmative to uphold the values presented by both teams. If you vote AFF, you will be upholding the value of preservation of life by supporting a case that would save 20,182 lives. You will also be upholding the NEG's value of reducing arbitrariness, because in their final argument, they switched to advocating arbitrariness, so to embrace the value of avoiding arbitrariness (which is secondary to preservation of life), you should vote them down. By advocating arbitrariness, the NEG has conceded that they lose on their own value, and they have already conceded that they lose on my value. A vote for the Affirmative upholds preservation of life in the hypothetical world where handguns are banned, and upholds avoidance of arbitrariness in the real world.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned

Arbitrary action is not morally permissible - justice and all of its benefits are incompatible with arbitrary action (justice is giving each their due - this causes human life to exist because each is due their own life). The negative's burden is to just disprove the affirmative in today's debate. If I lose my 1NC and you lose your 1AC, you need to vote neg because the affirmative's worldview is a diceroll of how they interperet - status quo is the neg's world and does not need further justification when a change is invalid.The affirmative lives in the world in which their sources exist as their own polar opposites. Extend Baudrillard and his example of the Italian bomber - all of these, the left wing bomber, right wing, centrist, are correct and false at the same time, made in the simulation. Extend my idea that we can't vote for arbitrary action, and to have a diceroll coming down as the ultimate voter in this debate is the very definition of arbitrary.Extend Zerubavel since my opponent concedes what Zerubavel claims. He says that arbitrary action is inevitable, I agree ... thus we need to preserve the status quo to prevent EVEN MORE arbitrary action. Inaction does not mean that it is a type of inaction - Zizek 06 writes more on this that inaction is the only way to actually preserve ourselves (if you wish this card just ask).They say this is a question of policy ... Well, Moti Mizrahi 09 writes that there is a fundamental difference between 'ought' and 'should' - where 'should' is a question of policy, 'ought' a question of moral ideology. My morality of justice is the broader classification of their justice of human life. They say we need net benefits ... that's utilitarianism (in a broad sense), and this justifies giving away individual human life for the net benefit. So, slavery is justified in the affirmative's value, so we can't affirm his value.Everything comes down to this: the affirmative's worldview is arbitrary in nature (this cannot be changed, they concede Zerubavel). While the negative may be arbitrary as well, you can't give in to a change in the status quo when the status quo is just as valid as the affirmative. If my opponent wishes, we may have a diceroll, where the judge rolls a die and votes for me if the result is even and for him if it is odd - for that is exactly what the affirmative's advocacy has become ... we might as well give a role of the ballot of arbitrary action within the affirmative's case!
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned

To begin, this round will be a question of policy, so it will be evaluated on net benefits. In order to win this debate, I must prove that the world will be better off if private ownership of handguns is banned than if it is not. Seeing as human life is generally accepted as the highest value, the winner of this debate will be the one whose side saves the most lives. Currently, gun violence kills 33,636 people per year in the United States, according to CNN (1). The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (1), and the highest rate of mass shootings (1). Other countries, such as Australia, have seen a decrease in gun deaths after adopting strict gun control laws. Gun control worked in Australia. After the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, they enacted a strict gun control policy that included a prohibition on private ownership of firearms without a genuine reason, which could not be personal protection (2). This prohibits most personal ownership of handguns, except for a small number of people who compete in sports with pistols (2). This policy reduced gun deaths in Australia by 60% (3). If you assume based on historical precedents that a similar thing will happen in America, 60% of 33,636 is 20,182. A 60% change is way too big to occur by chance, so even if the effect on the United States is not as proportionally significant, the probability is overwhelming that passing a similar policy will create a net reduction in gun deaths in America. For the purpose of this debate, gun deaths shall be divided into three categories: homicides, suicides, and accidents. Nearly 70% of homicides in the United States involve firearms (1). Having a gun makes it much easier to kill someone, especially if somebody wants to kill multiple people. Without guns, there would still be violence with knives, but knife wounds are much less likely to be fatal, and it is harder to target multiple people with knives than with guns. Also, guns are more likely to kill bystanders than other weapons. Suicide is much easier with a gun. About two-thirds of US gun deaths are suicides. When someone is feeling suicidal, shooting oneself with a gun is much easier, faces less inhibition, and requires less planning than many other forms of suicide (such as jumping off a bridge). Also, guns are quite effective for committing suicide - shooting oneself in the head is more likely to succeed in causing death than stabbing or poisoning oneself. Banning handguns will not prevent all suicides, but it will make suicide less common. Gun accidents are another cause of gun death, one that is particularly dangerous to children. Gun accidents have taken the lives of hundreds of children, and American children are nine times as likely to die in gun accidents than children in any other part of the world (4). This is another reason why the widespread ownership and permissiveness of gun ownership in the USA is bad. 1. http://www.cnn.com... 2. http://www.loc.gov... 3. http://www.gunpolicy.org... 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
There is/was intelligent life living in the universe besides humans

One problem with discussions about extraterrestrial life has been clearly covered by the late Isaac Asimov. In reviewing books for Science Digest he offered his comments on one by I.S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan (Intelligent Life in the Universe). In his review, Dr. Asimov said: “There are so many books on extraterrestrial life (I have written one myself) that they would almost seem to be a cottage industry. This is in a way surprising, since we have absolutely no evidence that any such phenomenon as life on other worlds exists” (1982, p. 36)Asimov, Isaac (1982), “Book Reviews,” Science Digest, 90[3]:36, March. The book by I.S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, was published by Holden-Day, New York, 1966.Not only is there no evidence for ET, but the SETI program designed to find evidence has come up empty.Robert Naeye wrote an article for Astronomy magazine titled “OK, Where Are They?” In his article, he commented: “If one chooses to shun speculation and stick solely with observations, one can ask the same question that Nobel physicist Enrico Fermi put forth in 1950: If the Galaxy is teeming with intelligent life, where are they? The sobering reality is that there is no observational evidence whatsoever for the existence of other intelligent beings anywhere in the universe. “Naeye, Robert (1996), “OK, Where Are They?,” Astronomy, 24:42-43, July.From http://www.apologeticspress.org...
There is/was intelligent life living in the universe besides humans

I understand that there is no evidence, but I'm going on beliefs and personal experiences. I know my argument title kind of asks for specific events and evidence, but I took my debate as arguing your beliefs. There has been one main evidence that there have been many arguments over, and it is one of the biggest alien conspiracies to date. That would be the Roswell incident. It just so happens that today is the 66th anniversary of the Roswell incident today. Many people argue over what was really found, a weather balloon, which the government says it was, or a flying saucer, like many eye witnesses say it was. I am going for the existence of aliens, now or at some point, during the worlds own existence. I know that there is not a lot of evidence, but I'm hoping that one day there will and the Roswell incident could hopefully prove for my case.
There is/was intelligent life living in the universe besides humans

PRO has the burden of proof as proving there is no life anywhere in the universe would require searching every location and finding no life there. PRO states his belief that there was once life on mars. This is an interesting belief, but our current exploration has found no evidence. PRO asks "what would make you think that the only habitable planet in the whole entire, vast universe" Currently, evidence! There is no evidence yet for life any where else. I hope we find evidence in the future, but there is none yet. PRO states "I am most certain that at one point in the past, or at some place in the huge, unexplored universe, there was/is life other than human beings." There is no evidence.
There is/was intelligent life living in the universe besides humans

I believe that there is most definitely life in the universe besides humans. Just look at Mars. There is scientific proof that there was once water on Mars and that it once had an atmosphere surrounding it. I believe that a long time ago, maybe 50,000 years ago, there was once life being supported on Mars. There have also been many claims by notable people of proof of UFO's or strange objects being seen in the sky. Also, if you look at pictures you can notice that there is a whole lot of unexplained photos and evidence of objects on the moon. In addition, what would make you think that the only habitable planet in the whole entire, vast universe, or that there is a different type of species of life. Not all types of living things need to be configured like humans. There could be a completely different setup of the cells in these aliens that could allow them to withstand the pressures of space. Back to the point of the vast universe. People are so consumed in the fact that there is no other habitable planet or any other species of life, but they only have a small area of research to go on. NASA probes can only go so far into the universe to have enough fuel to make it back. What makes you think that in the other 99.9 percent of unexplored space does not contain a different planet or alien life. Who knows? There may be a whole galaxy that supports life, and not just one planet. This topic may seem absurd to some, but it is definitely a topic worth arguing. Many people may not agree with me, but I am most certain that at one point in the past, or at some place in the huge, unexplored universe, there was/is life other than human beings.
Gay Marriage

Gay marrigae should be allowed in all 50 states. There are several aspects to gay marriage. The bible/church, basic human rights, and wether homosexuality is a choice or not. THe bible VERY clearly forbids gay marriage in the Old testament, but says nothing about it in the NEW testament. Jesus never preached anything about gays or gay marriage being wrong. Gays were often cast out of society. Jesus welcomed the outcast. He preached to love everyone, including your enemies. Many churches also forbid interacial and interfaith relationships, yet those are legal. As human beings. we have certain rights. One of them marriage. People say gay marriage is unnatural when in reality it exists in over 450 species, including humans. Homosexuality IS NOT a choice. Many studies have confirmed that whether you are gay or not lies in genes. In fact MANY studies confirm that there are more genes to confirm wether or not you are gay than there are when determing if you're right or left handed. And we don't punish the left handed. I would like to end my argument on the not that I'M BISEXUAL.
Gay Marriage

OK first of all that is THE WORST argument I've ever read. I mean i had to read it a couple times just to understand it.. i mean "a man a women we made is to have sex and have babys and if there are gay people runing around the will be no babys" first of that is some of the WORST grammar ever. and two U MISSPELLED BABIES!!! WTF??? Just because there is gay marriage doesn't mean that there will not be straight marriages. Both will ALWAYS exist. And even if the entire world's population was gay we still have enough research that we could clone humans. Just as the Scottish did to Dolly the sheep.
universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence

You've repeated yourself on the last argument with the second last argument.If your last argument is just quoting me contradicting myself, it is a very poor argument. Throughout this debate, you haven't posted specific arguments or countering/rebutting my arguments at all and have said the same thing three times: "i never said it would solve the gun problem. the only point is that it would help. even con seems to suggest in his words that some help will occur, just not all of it. he misses the point." This is a futile argument and clearly doesn't address your argument at all and therefore I find that your arguments have missed the point and have not made a clear view and point of your original argument. As you haven't posted a suitable rebuttle I can't argue with you no longer as there is no way I can rebut. This debate overall has frankly, been pointless as I have seen no arguments except the introduction argument made against me.Please, instead of posting the same thing three times, post an actual argument.
universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence

i never said it would solve the gun problem. the only point is that it would help. even con seems to suggest in his words that some help will occur, just not all of it. he misses the point. well to be clear, he is actually contradicting himself. "UBC's do work until as I said, criminals often steal guns and or import them. " "Universal Background Checks wouldn't solve this issue at all."
universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence

Suggesting is different from asserting it or actually saying it.UBC's do work until as I said, criminals often steal guns and or import them. Your missing the point about people using fradulent identities as well. Also, what crimes would you suggest would prohibit someone from using firearms or purchasing one? Almost 88 out of 100 people in the USA own a gun, couldn't they simply just borrow one from a friend or relative? UBC's have many loopholes through them. What about bribing gun store owners (I don't think that would be this difficult unless they are a professional brand retailer) and what about underground illegal gun stores? The majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. Over 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.[2] So 93% of these crimes wouldn't be prevented. Universal Background Checks wouldn't solve this issue at all.[1] "Guns Per Capita" http://www.washingtonpost.com...[2] "Gun Facts" http://www.gunfacts.info...