BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public

First of all I would like to point out that it was my opponent, not me, who chose the title of the debate. If he wanted to put more emphasis on a specific type of weapon he should have done so, I have just debated based on the topic. In a dire attempt to defend his fallacious example he made round two, my opponent claims that my example has "faults in his reasoning", when this is not the case. In my original argument I wrote: "It gives law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves from criminals" My argument clearly reefers to lawful self defense, which as I stated before, is defined under US law by "the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force. " What my opponent described was an unlawful act that would remain unlawful in spite of the weapon or tool used to commit it. My opponent clearly lacks a rudimentary understanding of criminal law and is not able to differentiate between an act of self defense and an intentional murder. My best argument in favor of keeping semi-automatic weapons for sale to the public has been made by my opponent in round five. He writes: "For my opponent's next point, he basically reinstates the same point about it being acceptable to fire upon a leader if they become non-beneficial to society. To counter this, I will clarify my last argument; I talked about how the leader's followers will become angry with this and then fire upon the ones who are in a non-supportive position of the leader. " My opponent clearly and unmistakably writes that if a President or political leader would become subversive and install himself as a dictator, any attempt by the civilian population to reinstall democracy will be met with brutal force and that the leader's supporters will fire upon the ones who are in a non-supportive position. We can be sure that in this scenario, the usurper's weaponry will include semi-automatic and more sophisticated weapons, which will make the rest of the civilian population, if their sacrosanct right to ownership of semi-automatic weapons had been taken away, unable to organize any effective resistance and reinstate a democratic form of government. We have seen government and dictatorial brutality against citizens in the past, we are seeing it right now in places like Libya, and Bahrain. The Second Amendment defends our right to chose our elected representatives! Don't give up democracy! Don't give up your right to keep and bear arms! Support the Second Amendment, legal ownership of semi-automatic weapons and Freedom!
No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public

First, I would like to address my opponent's use of the Constitutional 2nd Amendment; Like he said, it does not state which type of firearms. It should be common knowledge that when this amendment was made, weaponry was significantly different from the way it is today. The rifles took about 30 seconds to reload for one shot and they were not even accurate enough to aim for a target 200 feet away. Thinking realistically, would our forefathers have set that amendment the same way if the weapons were able to kill 10 people in 5 seconds? I would now like to address my opponent's 1st point; "It gives law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves from criminals, who by definition do not follow the law. .. " So by this reasoning, my opponent is basically saying that we as law-abiding citizens have the right to kill a non law-abiding with a semi-sutomatic weapon if he/she tries to steal a hat off out head. According to my opponent's reasoning, we can say to the police, "I shot him 5 times in the back because I was defending myself from him. " Police says, "Oh, what did he do? " Citizen, "He tried to steal me hat. " Now i will address point 2; "It ensures the ability of the people to enforce their sovereignty and their right to elect and legitimize a democratic form of government. " My opponent later goes on to say, because we as citizens have these semi-automatic weapons, it prevents the leader from using force because 300 million armed citizens will fight back. This is simply immoral. It will never be socially acceptable for a citizen to fire upon a leader. Now to address my opponents next point; A militia has not been used or even remotely needed in the US for hundreds of years. Again, not socially acceptable. It will never be socially acceptable in the US for a group of people to roam the streets with semi-automatic weapons ready to kill another group of people. On the last point; So just because it is just as easy for a serial killer to kill people another way, it makes it okay to keep the weapons just giving him/her another option?
No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public

Great topic to debate! Challenge accepted ;) "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." The second amendment of the United States Constitution gives every citizen the right to keep and bear arms. The constitution itself does not specify which types of arms a citizen is allowed to posses, but is clearly states that the reason to allow the ownership of arms is to ensure the security of the state. The advantages of arms ownership are twofold: 1) It gives law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves from criminals, who by definition do not follow the law and would arm themselves even if it was against the law. 2) It ensures the ability of the people to enforce their sovereignty and their right to elect and legitimize a democratic form of government. Private gun ownership is a strong deterrence for a leader to try to use force, or even a standing army, to subjugate the people. A President, Senator, Representative or General will be forced to think twice before trying to stage a Coup D'etat in the US knowing that he will have to answer for is actions to over 300 million armed citizens. Not allowing civilians to legally own and bear semi-automatic, or for that matter, automatic firearms would reduce the effectiveness of the deterrence provided by the Second Amendment. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would not prevent criminals from getting their hands on semi automatic weapons, or converting manual weapons into semi- or automatic weapons. A militia composed of people armed with non-semi or non-automatic weapons only would be far less effective. Finally, there are many other machines with far greater destructive power that can be accessed by pretty much everybody. If a person really wants to massacre 20 people, he doesn't have to have a semi-automatic weapon, he could just as easily get into his car and run pedestrians over.
gay marrige is WRONG

christianity is relevant cuz god watches over u and he is everywhere and is very real. all ppls who allow gay marrige wer struck down by gods foorce, nativ americans wer stupid n retarded n they dont worship the god of the holy bible. god sent the whitte man 2 kill indians cuz they dont worship god and they allow gay marrige wich is a very bad sin and shuld be illegal. gay ppl rape our kids cuz they are pedophils lok up the fact http://www.wnd.com... if we allow gay marrige gay ppl will be encurrage to rape kids n infring on their rights. we need 2 prosecute sin again cuz we ar a christin nation and have alwys been. i think i make my point
gay marrige is WRONG

gay marrige is wrong becase it is establish by the church and by god of the holy bible that amarrige is between a man and a woman. gay marrige will destroy the family n our family values kids need 2 be raise by 1 man 1 woman or they becom very bad i no its hard 4 gays to understand but its just the truth gay marrige will lead 2 destruction of marrige and ppl will mary animals an there family member and children. after gays have rigts liberals will give bestalityist and pedophiles rights. u will jus say that it is slippy slope fallacy but i say its not a fallacy it is real concern. we have to stop gay marrige.
Wolverine vs. Batman

But Batman is smarter. One of Wolverines weaknesses is magnets. So Batman could rip him apart with strategically placed magnets. His joints aren't adamantium so they could cut or ripped off. His head could be cut off and dragged away from his body for a while and he would die. He is not fireproof if all his flesh is burned off. Vibranium is anti-metal so if Batman put even a little bit on him it would destroy him from the inside out . He could also be drowned. He doesn't have the attack range that Batman does. Batman has things to beat Wolverine from a range and he could stay out of his way. Batman has the technology to have the senses that Wolverine does.
Wolverine vs. Batman

"As a result of Wolverine's constant cellular regeneration and the additional weight and tensile strength of his skeleton he has some degree of superhuman strength enabling him to press somewhere in excess of 800 lbs but not more than 2 tons and he is able to place this strength in his strikes. The latest official handbook entry says that Wolverine is capable of lifting in excess of 800 lbs for brief periods due to his adamantium skeleton.[55]" Master Martial Artist: Due to his extensive training as a soldier, a CIA operative, a samurai and a member of the X-Men, Logan is an exceptional martial artist, with expertise in Japanese martial arts, and has mastered 15 forms of martial arts. His extraordinary hand-to-hand combat ability makes him one of the finest combatants on Earth. He was able to keep up with both the Black Panther and the Iron Fist,[54] both expert martial artists. He has also defeated various hand-to-hand experts without using his claws. a26;Superhumanly Acute Senses: Wolverine possesses superhumanly acute senses that are comparable to those of certain animals. He can see at far greater distances, with perfect clarity, than an ordinary human. He retains this same level of clarity even in near total darkness. His hearing is enhanced in a similar manner, allowing him to detect sounds ordinary humans couldn't hear at a greater distances, enough to hear a teardrop in another room that have thick walls with enough focus. He is able to recognize people and objects by scent, even if they are well hidden. He can track a target by scent, even if the scent has been greatly eroded by time and weather factors, with an extraordinary degree of success. Wolverine can also use his keen sense of smell to detect lies due to chemical changes within a person's scent. These senses stem from, at least partially, his constant cellular regeneration, as are his enhanced physical capabilities. a26;Superhuman Strength: His natural strength is augmented by the demand placed on his musculature due to the presence of over 50kg/100 pounds of Adamantium bonded to his skeleton, which also removes the natural limitations of the human skeletal structure by allowing him to lift weights that would damage a human skeleton." this is all taken from http://marvel.wikia.com...(James_%22Logan%22_Howlett) now lets compare to batman on the official dc website exceptional martial artist, combat strategy, inexhaustible wealth, brilliant deductive skill, advanced technology http://www.dccomics.com... in short how could a person (Batman) who is slower weaker and with less skill going to fight against a person (wolverine) who is considered to have super human strength, a indestructible bone structure, razor sharp nearly indestructible swords of death that come out of his arms, healing factors that have allowed him to survive a nuclear explosion and vastly superior senses. there is no possible way for the simple fact that wolverine is faster, stronger, a better fighter, heals from all wounds that batman can inflict nearly instantly, and many other things, wolverine will always win.
Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

Due to some unforseen circumstances, I'm actually not going to be able to complete this debate. The response was really great, and the topic is really interesting. However, there are some things that are in the way. Judges, I apologize. Please vote for my opponent if you feel that voting is necessary. I also apologize for my opponent. I'm sorry I wasn't able to stick around, but I hope to debate this topic with you again very soon.
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

Because LD debate follows an AFF, NEG, AFF, NEG, AFF format, this will be the last post with the remainder of this round and the following rounds remaining empty. As per LD format, this last AFF "speech" is short containing a general summary and voting points. Make no mistake, the issue we are debating today, is whether treating juveniles using the same system as adults will make the US better. We are not debating whether, however, that child should be judged exactly the same as adults. This notion is absurd. The idea of mitigating factors cannot play a role per the resolution is a miscarriage of the resolution. There would be not possible way to treat them in judgement the same as adults, because adults are all judged under different circumstances. Furthermore, in LD debate, there is no prohibition of using a defensive stance as offence, after all, it is said that the best offense is a good defense. Additionally, whether or not juveniles will be sent to adult prison and face abuse is irrelevant as argued before. Finally, as I proved in the AR, my value and value criterion are clearly superior. In response to my opponent, because we are debating the United States, the social contract I refer to is US social contract. This implicit assumption is not vague because I explain what the social contract is in my AC. You must affirm today to uphold the social contract of the united states by holding juveniles accountable. My defensive arguments are just as valid as my offensive arguments because the flip side of holding juveniles accountable, is the aspect of achieving that in a fair way for the juveniles. Juvenile courts are inherently unjust, which by itself would be reason enough to treat juveniles in adult court, but paired with the advantages that the adult courts give, the decision is simple, vote Affirmative.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

I apologize for the missed citation i was very busy i almost didn't have time for this debate,sorry.However my oppponent might not have fully read my case in jesus vs Ceasar for it was simply compareing the evidence for both events.As it's stated. "Then he compares the evidence for both events:" "First of all, we have Caesar’s own account. In contrast, we have nothing written by Jesus, and we do not know who really wrote any of the Gospels. Second, many of Caesar’s enemies reported the crossing of the Rubicon. But we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the supposed event, fifty years after Christian beliefs had become widely known. Third, there are numerous inscriptions, coins, mentions of battles, conscriptions and judgments, which form an almost continuous chain of evidence for Caesar’s entire march. But there is no physical evidence of any kind in the case of Jesus." "the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life."-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)" It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all." -J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs) Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it. -Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read)"Jesus Never Existed at All." Atheism Resource RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Dec. 2013. Jesus's town.For the past 2000 years first-century Nazareth was unquestionably considered the historic hometown of Jesus. The gospels make it abundantly clear that Jesus was “of Nazareth” (Jn. 1:45; Jn 19:19; Mk. 1:24; Lk. 18:27). However, Rene Salm has challenged the historical Nazareth in his The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (American Atheist Press, 2008). According to his view, ancient Nazareth did not emerge prior to A.D. 70, and the settlement of Nazareth did not exist earlier than the second-century A.D. long after Christ’s crucifixion. To substantiate these claims, Salm appeals to, among other things: 1) late dating Roman and Byzantine artifacts (e.g oil lamps), 2) the Gospel of Luke which tells us that Jesus’ hometown was Capernaum, not Nazareth, 3) “problematic” biblical passages (e.g. Mt. 2:23, “And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” ESV) that have no prophetic reference in the Jewish Scriptures, and 4) that Josephus and the Jewish Talmud do not mention Nazareth in their lists of Galilean cities. Con's points. Pliny the Younger Pliny the Younger (61-112 AD)(61-112 AD) Agian all of his sources are from people after jesus time.Sources.http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

Hi!I would like to begin by saying I am a staunch Atheist. However, I wish to refute your argument of Jesus never existing. Jesus, the person, whether or not he had actual heavenly powers, is documented in a few sources.Documented by Tacitus “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” This, if you aren't aware, is a documentation of the crucification of "somebody" who lead the Christians and as a result suffered crucification. The OssuaryDespite being called a fake and then being called an evidence-in-investigation, The Ossuary states "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Now this isn't much to go nuts over until you remember the historical names.Jesus's Embarassing DeathCrucification was not particularly oble way of dying. It is pretty hard to be noble when you are nailed to a piece of plywood. So, if we had an ancient fiction writer looking to gain a few ducats by making up a story of a "hero religious figure" dying, it probably won't be by nailing.______And finally, it is just plain silly to assume that Jesus of Nazarath did not exist. Even if he was not the historically godly figure, he probably did walk the Earth before. Besides, we could easily be talking about a Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. (Link for this sentence http://rationalwiki.org...)I look forward to your reply
Religion can be both a constructive and destructive thing, depending on the religion.

I will be arguing that some religions should be forgotten and left in the past, and some deserve to be treated with more respect as they are constructive. Religions such as Christianity are destructive to society, Christians want to take away people's freedom, For instance, Christians oppose abortion but there is no good reason for this if a Christian doesn't want to have an abortion fine, but let people who aren't Christian have a choice. Christians oppose: Homosexuality, Transgender people, Abortion, Euthanasia , And other topics all of which are an attempt to restrict people's lives. A religion which isn't based on science at all should not have an effect on scientific decisions. However there are some religions I feel which are a force for good, religions like, Taoism, Asatru, Buddhism and Hinduism do not attempt to restrict people's freedoms in the ways that Christianity does, They instead teach us to be more compassionate, giving, respectful and promote good values and hope. The same cannot be said for Christianity in particular.
Religion can be both a constructive and destructive thing, depending on the religion.

' Many Christian churches started schools, hospitals, and charities around the world, ' this may be true a while ago, but these things are not Christian exclusive, anyone can build schools hospitals and charities. Back when this was happening the church was considered an extension of the state which explains why they built infrastructure. The only reason they built schools was to push their beliefs on to others, I see that disrespectful and ridiculous that young people have beliefs they don't even understand pushed upon them. I for one ( not by my choice) went to a Christian school, luckily they failed top radicalize me, I turned to Asatru instead. but the point remains that they are just using schools to recruit more people to their faith. '"restricting people's freedoms" that is because I assume you live in the west, the population of the west is Christianity.' Yes, I do live in the west, although my country is not heavily Christianized anymore. I do not believe Christianity restrict people's freedom just because it's the main religion in my country, I believe it because they oppose so many things that are freedoms for people, also I know the values of all these religions and Christianity including the bible is the most restrictive, religions like Taoism are extremely open to interpretation allowing their followers to believe a lot of different things. Let's not forget who caused the crusades and who killed hundreds of thousands of people, oh yeah Christians, In Genesis 22:20 it states 'Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed' this implies that anyone of any other religion than Christianity should be killed, is that not destructive?
Religion can be both a constructive and destructive thing, depending on the religion.

I will argue the later, that many religions are not only good for people lives, but constructive for society. Christianity for example. Many Christian churches started schools, hospitals, and charities around the world, all of which have advanced society to where it is today, saving millions of lives, educating hundreds of millions of people. When your bring up, other religions,Taoism, Asatru, Buddhism and Hinduism, you think so highly of them in regard to not "restricting peoples freedoms" that is because, I assume you live in the west, the population of the west is Christianity. We vote for people who we like, who share our values. So naturally those people are going to promote what they were elected to say which will fall in line with Christianity, in Europe and Latin America they will lean more towards Roman Catholicism. In the United States, they may lean more Protestant, or Roman Catholic. If you lived in an area where Taoism, Asatru, Buddhism and Hinduism are major religions you may feel they are restrictive and that Christianity is promotes personal freedoms.
EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY Darth Vader VS Adolph Hitler BOTH 1 AND 2 OVERALL WINNER

So you've dropped all teh other points and latched onto this last one. So I guess if voters want to verify that its true they'll make an account on ERB and see if its actually true, and even if it is the "official" survey, it still demonstrated that Vader is only winning a public opinion survey, and is not the Overall Winner.
EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY Darth Vader VS Adolph Hitler BOTH 1 AND 2 OVERALL WINNER

I do not know why you cannot see this http://epicrapbattlesofhistory.com... Or maybe you do not have an account.You need to have an account to vote to see Official websites with official results It is called epic rap battles of history.com because it has the official videos with official votes to the match all the other websites (if there are other websites) are not considered official votes. Second match http://epicrapbattlesofhistory.com...... Over all Vader has 107 percent while Hitler has 93 percent OVER ALL IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE WITH OFFICIAL RESULTS LEADING TO VADER HAVING THE MOST AWESOME PERFORMANCE OVER ALL