BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should go to school less

FrameworkBoP is on Pro because she has to fill the Burden of Proof of why children should go to school less. I will go onto my rebuttals in this round, also my arguments. Rebuttals1. Sick or TiredPro says that the kids can be very tired, and might get sick. However, you get be sick or tired anytime. When yu ski, you can have a cold. Also, the best way is sleeping or not watching TV after 8 [1]. This helps you not be tired in the morning, and at school. 2. Children hate schoolPro says that most kids hate school, and parents can teach them. However this is just a stereotype. If you don't like school, you can be homeschooled, or excersize at recess to make you not tired. Many people like school also, not everyone hates school. Some people like to play sports with their friends, or teamwork with others. Stereotyping is bad because everyone disagrees with something, and not everyone hates school. Also, you have no evidence to prove your argument of people hating schools.Thank you. I will go to my arguments.Arguments1. School provides educationSchool provides education. And if you go to school, you can interact with others, and learn. If we do go to school less, than we might not learn as much, and parents can not teach well.2. Many people like schoolMany people like school. Why should we make school less when people like school?[1] http://www.webmd.com...Thank you.
Stricter Gun Control Policies

"You called me "ignorant". Thanks for being respectful." You were being ignorant. That is not a bad word. You were given information, and you blatantly ignored in. That is ignorance. "So why does Texas have some of the lowest crime rates every since making less gun control laws. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org...; texas has larger problems. Due to illegal immigrants and gang activity, there are a lot of illegally owned firearms. Chicago has taken firearms away. Once again, I do not want to . This is why I called you ignorant. I have stated several times I do not wish to do this, yet you ignore that. "How will guns going missing lead to less murder? You said mandating guns will prevent them from going missing, but if they cannot be found, then they are simply missing. No matter what you really do to a gun, if it is gone it is gone. Unless you put a tracker on it there is no way to know where that gun went. It would not lead to less crime." When guns go "missing", gangs and people who wish to do bad things with those weapon now have control. It's extremely simple, why do you not stand for this? You make it sound like you want this people to have firearms. It's obvious that firearms sold illegally (missing) firearms will only be used for bad things, so I don't understand the point of your argument. "I do not think I need to say anymore. Simply making it harder for the innocent to retrieve guns only makes it easier for the criminals to commit crimes." I reaffirm I am not making it harder to get firearms. I believe I said that in my first arguments. Background checks will not be more work for the person purchasing the firearm. Thanks
Stricter Gun Control Policies

I will end my argument like this. You called me "ignorant". Thanks for being respectful. To add to that, you said Texas has very little gun control. So why does Texas have some of the lowest crime rates every since making less gun control laws. Look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org.... Gun deaths have gone down from 8 per 100,000 people to 4 per 100,000 people. More people die in Chicago, a gun control infested city in one week than an entire year in Texas. Less gun control = more lives saved. If I was going to commit a crime would I do it in Chicago where I know people do not I have, or would I do it in Texas where I know every other person will shoot me if I do something to harm others? I will also respond to where you said "Please respond." How will guns going missing lead to less murder? You said mandating guns will prevent them from going missing, but if they cannot be found, then they are simply missing. No matter what you really do to a gun, if it is gone it is gone. Unless you put a tracker on it there is no way to know where that gun went. It would not lead to less crime. I do not think I need to say anymore. Simply making it harder for the innocent to retrieve guns only makes it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.
Stricter Gun Control Policies

1st paragraph: Your personal feelings are irrelevant. Were not here to discuss personal issues, were here to discuss issues. 2nd paragraph: That is not my entire argument. That was a rebuttal to your argument. A rebuttal which you failed to rebut yourself. 3rd Paragraph. You are ignorant. I clearly stated that stricter gun control is in a sense very vague. Since like I stated, Texas has very little gun control, any body can buy a gun. All I want is more background checks. (Stricter background checks). You failed to give a counter definition, so under the overarching definition, I am protected. 4th paragraph: Like I stated previously. Stricter is vague. There is virtually no gun control laws in Texas. Back ground checks would benefit us. " My point was nothing stops the criminals from obtaining firearms illegally so putting down stricter gun control will only thwart and prevent the good citizens from purchasing firearms legally." Would background checks keep firearms out of the hands of healthy citizens? I expect an answer in the next round. "There are backround checks! That is to prevent the unstable from obtaining firearms. I am simply stating that we should not make it even HARDER to obtain firearms when it is already like this." Please cite where I said I want to make it harder to attain firearms for the average citizen. I never did. I want deeper, more extensive back ground checks. "This entire article you sent does not have to do anything about the topic. We are talking about stricter gun control. You proposed that "mandating guns" can prevent situations like this. Ok? How is this restricting the simple right to own a gun? That is not controlling anything that is just a safety measure. Gun control is all about the topic of making it harder or easier to express your right to bear arms" That article gave an idea to how many guns go missing. I used it to strengthen my point about holding those who "lose" firearms responsible. An argument you dropped. "You completely ignored my fact that "96% of all homicides from guns are done by criminals who get parole or pardons by corrupted officials / illegally obtained weapons in the United States". Please respond." No I didn't! You literally just tried to rebut my argument that talked about missing firearms. Did you not even read what you were writing? If we ensure that guns do not go missing by holding people accountable, then less guns will go missing=Less murder. Please respond. Thanks
Stricter Gun Control Policies

2nd paragraph : I stated in my arguement that I was going to give all of my views on gun control and that it what I did. The point of my first statement was quote "I will use this round to give my simple facts of why Gun Control is wrong." I clearly said that and gave you almost all of my views on gun control. 3rd paragraph : Is that really your arguement? Do not make a fool of yourself. 4th paragraph: And thats exactly why I want Gun Control laws to not become stricter. So citizens like you may have those firearms. Thank you for supporting my arguement! 5th paragraph : I completely understand this is gun control. That is why this topic is "STRICTER GUN CONTROL". I made that very clear. I believe in back round checks! Of course! 100 percent of Americans probably do because you do not want criminals or the mentally ill with the possesion of guns. I do not want STRICTER gun control that effects the innocent and those who deserve the right to bear arms. 6th paragraph: My point was nothing stops the criminals from obtaining firearms illegally so putting down stricter gun control will only thwart and prevent the good citizens from purchasing firearms legally. 7th paragraph: There are backround checks! That is to prevent the unstable from obtaining firearms. I am simply stating that we should not make it even HARDER to obtain firearms when it is already like this. And for my "100th time" my last post was to give you all my thoughts on gun control. My response to your "missing forearms" topic. This entire article you sent does not have to do anything about the topic. We are talking about stricter gun control. You proposed that "mandating guns" can prevent situations like this. Ok? How is this restricting the simple right to own a gun? That is not controlling anything that is just a safety measure. Gun control is all about the topic of making it harder or easier to express your right to bear arms IMPORTANT! You completely ignored my fact that "96% of all homicides from guns are done by criminals who get parole or pardons by corrupted officials / illegally obtained weapons in the United States". Please respond.
Stricter Gun Control Policies

To begin, I will explain how I will be organizing my arguments. For rebuttals, they will be labeled corresponding. 1st paragraph: My side was plenty clear. I stated that by definition, gun control, defined as, "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms.". Under this definition, government mandated gun safes and back ground checks would be allowed. I do not want a more extreme measure, nor a lesser extreme. 2nd paragraph: I hope your entire argument is not based on banning guns. I do not want to do that. I made that extremely clear in my last argument. I specifically said, "I do not want to take anything away from innocent, hard working Americans. It is clearly their constitutional right to bear arms. " Unless you can prove I said something along the lines of, "I want to get rid of guns", this argument is invalid. 3rd paragraph: You also have the right to burn the American flag. Should you just go out and do that because you can? 4th paragraph: I understand assault weapons. I have one. I am a stable citizen, who is capable of having a firearm. 5th paragraph: "Yes there should and is back round checks that see if you are mentally ill or a criminal. I agree, keep the guns away from the ones who will use it for harm of others. " Do you understand that this is gun control? If you believe in background checks, and keeping firearms out of certain American's arms, then you believe in gun control. 6th paragraph: Once again, "hat stops guns from being given to the bad guys". As I proposed earlier, we hold people who lose guns responsible. See here, "As a person who owns firearms, I can ensure you that they do not just go missing. Mandating gun safes could potentially help in keeping firearms out of criminals hands. Also, there is no excuse for firearm dealers to "lose" firearms.". 7th paragraph: Once again, I do not want to take guns away from safe, stable people. But background checks that prevent the mentally incapable of owning firearms would at least do some good, and the people who are capable are barely effected. I don't want to ban guns, I don't want to ban knives. With that statement, your argument falls flat unit's face. "More guns = less crime. Less guns = more crimes." For the 100th time, I don't want to take guns away. I want to keep guns out of the bad guys hands. by preventing guns from being sold illegally, we can stop unnecessary crime. Thanks, and hopefully you will rebut my "missing firearms" argument next round.
Stricter Gun Control Policies

Thank you for starting this debate! To begin, I will state my policies on firearms. I do not want to take anything away from innocent, hard working Americans. It is clearly their constitutional right to bear arms. However, back ground checks should be put in place to determine whether or not someone is fit to operate a firearm. For example, Texas, the state I live in, is the easiest place to buy a firearm. You can practically walk into a store and own a firearm. Also, "WASHINGTON " Slightly more than 190,000 firearms were reported lost or stolen across the country last year, according to a new report by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives". As a person who owns firearms, I can ensure you that they do not just go missing. Mandating gun safes could potentially help in keeping firearms out of criminals hands. Also, there is no excuse for firearm dealers to "lose" firearms. Thanks http://www.usatoday.com...
Capitalism is superior to Socialism

One of the main reasons that Capitalism is better, is that it's been more successful. Capitalism clearly has worked in the top five most Capitalist countries in the world. They are Germany, the United States of America, China, India, and Japan. China manufactures and freely trades many goods to many countries. Japan is one of the world leaders in the auto manufacturing industry. India's recent capitalist economic boom is due to the techonolgy companies relocating there. Germany is also very big in the free trade auto industry. The United States is the only indisputable Super Power left in the world. . http://blog.peerform.com... Historically, Socialism has not been very successful for the countries who adopted it. Just look at all of these former Soviet Socialist Republics. An example is the Former Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic. Socialism and Communism are okay ideas in their own ways, but the clearly don't work. By the way, the most economically successful Communist country right now is China. Like I pointed out earlier, China is very Capitalist. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... The reason for any economic system is to serve the people. Capitalism does this much better than Socialism does. In a Capitalist system, the prices and trade industry are controlled by private business owners and demand. Think about most businesses, which are small ones. If you're a small buisiness owner, you'd want to control your prices based on what you want. You wouldn't want the big federal government controlling the prices. People who support Socialism say that Capitalism helps only the wealthy, but it clearly helps the hard working, middle class entrepreneurs as well. Also Capitalism rewards the hard working and the merit. Socialism rewards mediocrity. In a Capitalist economy, people who can work hard and produce are rewarded. People who support socialism complain that CEOs and professional athletes make more than harder working school teachers and low level bank tellers. Well, CEOs and professional athletes had to work to be in the spot they are. Teachers and tellers are on their way to higher spots, therefore they shouldn't be paid more than those at the top. A bank teller could eventually become CEO with enough hard work in a Capitalist system. In a Socialist society, people who don't have the necessary skills, education, and work ethic are still rewarded with welfare and food stamps. I am okay with welfare as long as people use it for its intention, which is to get hard working people back on their feet. . http://townhall.com... I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Capitalism is superior to Socialism

Round two is for opening arguments and rebuttals. Round three is for final rebuttals and conclusion. I will be taking the pro side on my claim, "Capitalism is superior to Socialism. " Here are the rules. - Forfeiture will result in an immediate loss of conduct points. - Correct spelling, grammar, and capitalization will be required. Occasional errors are fine. - Sources are required for rounds two and three.
What50 and Masterful are not the same person.

Hello Masterdave I really don't know you so i am confuse on why you say "It's me again". My first argument is that if we were the same persons we would be both ban. According to the DDO terms of use it is against the rules to create multiple accounts. This begs the question if Me and Masterful are the same person why are t we not banned. http://www.debate.org... Second if me and Masterful were the same person how come our writing and grammar are much more different. If you read my debates and compare them to Masterful you can really see a difference in writing and grammar. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... These reasons are enough to show that me and masterful are not the same person.
monopoly with credit card instead of real paper money

It could, and my apologizes with my lack of comprehension I failed to realize the topic was about the board game Monopoly, not the casino's monopoly. The title said "Monopoly with credit cards instead of real paper money" I misunderstood the topic. Again, my apologizes. In a way I think it could help a child, and yes, a credit card would be more faster than paper money being passed out by hand, a quit swipe would make the game go a bit faster.
monopoly with credit card instead of real paper money

Good luck man, let the debate began! Now, one using their credit card to gamble sounds like a bad idea. If a credit card is used irresponsibly it could effect your credit history, and making tough for whomever in the long run. Negative credit history will prevent you from qualifying for loans, paying a mortgage, renting an apartment, paying interest rates, paying insurance rates, etc. Obtaining a job would be difficult as well so using your credit card to gamble sounds like a terrible idea. You want to use your credit card properly, and using them in games such as Monopoly won't help you in the long run, overall in my honest opinion gambling isn't the way to go, but If I were to recommend, using their actually money instead of their credit card sounds more like a bright idea.
Just a question

a debate of riddles... If accepted, the rules are...1) For winning, CON must score 16 or more...2) For a draw, The score can be 12 to 16...3) below that, it is a win for me and a lose for CONI will like it if CON doesn't use the internet for the answers... I do not dare accuse a user but still as a precautionary...Thank you... I look forward to this.
Just a question

.. Let's have some fun! HERE THEY GO. .. .1) An ambulance was speeding up a highway and reached a bridge. The bridge had a signboard "No vehicles are allowed to pass the bridge at this time. So, turn around and go to your home. " The driver went down with a paintbrush and added a letter to the signboard. .. and then easily crossed through the bridge. .. what did he add?2) I jump like a tiger. I eat grass like a cow. I can fly like a bird. .. what am I?3) She fell down, as if from the sky, rough as she was, she made a spiky pattern on the ground. I teared her apart to find hundreds of children inside her. What was she?4) 8 guys were travelling by a car. They travelled for 8 hours and finally when they stopped, they realised that one of the car's tyres were punctured. Why didn't they realise it before?5) They are a variety of old people having white beards. The curious thing about them is that their kind has bald heads. They honour their bald heads and if you try to touch or rub the shiny bald heads, they become so angry that they burn up in flames! what kind of "variety" am I talking about?
Legalization of marijuana

Regulated marijuana would greatly improve federal and state funded programs:Excise taxes are not good for raising revenue. In 2012 the tobacco tax, the most revenue raising excise tax, raised about 17 billion dollars [1] and the federal budget was 3.5 Trillion [2], so that tax is about 0.5% of the federal budget. As I have shown legalization would increase crime, and has a mass of bad health effects. Increased crime and increased health issues will only hurt the economy.Concluding, marijuana should not be legal because it will hurt the economy even though it raises minuscule amount of tax revenue. Cannabis based products would be legal to produce in the U.S.You can have industrial hemp products without legalizing marijuana for other uses. Further, there is a difference between Industrial hemp and marijuana [3] Sources[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov...[2] http://www.cbo.gov...[3] http://hempethics.weebly.com...
Legalization of marijuana

Sorry for once again, taking a damnable amount of time to complete these arguements. I'm terribly busy around now and in a difficult position with researching. My information might be a tad bit lacking, but it may be necessary to make these points now so that I can add to them later. Here we go.Regulated marijuana would greatly improve federal and state funded programs:The amazing thing about marijuana that makes it like any other commodity is that it can be regulated and taxed by the government so as to enrich the lives of those who wish to stop smoking the product. Just like how both taxes from tobacco and alcohol sales go towards educating and helping those addicted; cannibis would do the same. The income would go right back into helping those who wish to quit by providing them with supportive programs for abstinence. The current bag and tag, forced treatment system we use now is not working in the slightest. With the supply and the demand rising, the problem is not going away with prohibition. The least they can do is use a working system like regulation to help subside the problem financially and educationally.Cannibis based products would be legal to produce in the U.S.The law that banned the growing of marijuana also included the banned growth of the non toxic and versatile product hemp. Hemp contains very little THC as a result of breeding and can not be smoked to the same extent as normal cannibis sativa. It's uses trump any other plant, being capable of being refined into many consumer products such as paper, clothing, fuel, rope, resin, wax, hemp oil, plastics, and even types of food.(1) It grows faster than most commercial plants, resists disease and pests without pesticides, and even stops the spread of weeds without herbisides.(1) Consuming or useing the plant does not inhibit you like marijuana(1) and it's a far better alternative than several present consumer products that have many negative affects on the environment and people while in production.How does this relate back to the THC rich drug of marijuana you might ask? Well... It's mostly in how it's presented. It was originally falsely depicted as a harmful drug along with it's cousin; marijuana. The law condemned both without proof and it threw an ecconomic advantage down the drain as a result. This adds to the number of reasons why the law should be repealed and have the cannibis sativa species legal for growth and use in the united states.NotesI will prepare my rebuttals to con's points next round due to my time constraint. Con is free to either present more points or present a rebutttal to my points.Sources(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Legalization of marijuana

The topic of today is weed. Whether or not it should be legal shall be discussed in the following rounds:First round is for acceptance Second round is for argumentsThird round is for arguments/ rebuttalFourth round is for rebuttalFifth round is for rebuttal and conclusionNo new arguments are to be made after the third round. Rounds four and five are for debating merit and deficiencies made in two and three.Conditions of victory for pro/con:Pro: Must provide sound arguments for legalization of marijuana and successfully undermine con's arguments for prohibition with factual information. Con: Must provide sound arguments against legalization of marijuana and successfully undermine pros arguments for legalization with factual information.I wish you luck con. This will be a good one.