BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
banning all guns is wrong

//"My rebuttal was that if the criminal was armed as well then the citizen would have been in an even worse position, thus the only way to truly defend oneself is with mines and other extreme security procedures."// How would the citizen be in a worst position? You don"t need mines to protect yourself if you got a gun. A gun is the best option and is a lot safer compared to mines. I don"t think I should have to explain this. //"And in what will reenlisting into school and taking an entire year of vague U.S. history benefit me when I can simply look for such information online? If you're going to insult me, do it properly."// I"m not insulting you, I just get annoyed when people say I need to prove something that is common sense. you have not done this yet so it doesn"t matter. //"The military is just as useless as the militias"// Again im saying if the government with a few clicks of a few buttons (long story short), there would be almost nothing we can do. Again if the government wanted to take control without the population being destroyed, is another factor. //""They [Japanese citizens?] don"t need guns because they [Japanese citizens?] could attack us in a flash of a second." WTF? Do you realize that the Japanese are our closest allies in the Asian region?"// I said that wrong. I meant the Japanese could attack us, not their citizens. I understand that they are one of our biggest allies, but they were before to. And please explain the biggest reason I gave, the holocaust. You never explained how I was wrong about that one. My Chicago point is that we already have so many guns in the country that no gun laws would work. The other countries pretty much had the law from the beginning. //"And don't even get me started about the massive drug cartels that thrive from our gun rights, which also kills hundreds and thousands of Mexicans per year, not including death by the massive amount of drugs being sold."// Drugs are banned. You think banning guns will be able to stop this? Already way to many guns to even use an example like this. This example only shows how they would also be able to sneak guns and do with them what they are doing with drugs, hiding wise.
banning all guns is wrong

"No, your[sic] absolutely wrong. The second amendment was not put in for hunting." May I clarify and restate that hunting was only part of the reason, nor did I say it was "put in" for hunting, only that hunting inspired, significantly or insignificantly, the reasoning for the amendment. I never once denied that is wasn't from protection from tyranny, nor have I mentioned the invasion of animals. Such motions were only enlarged by you and you alone."Yes there are some good countries that have a ban on guns. But does that mean we should just give up ours? There is just as much evidence that the outcome could be bad as there is as much that it could do good."Where is this evidence? I have shown you mine (Japan, Australia, etc.) "The right to bare arms means to protect yourself with a gun. Not bombs, tanks, or anything like that. You want proof? Go get your own by going back to school and taking[sic] a real US history class."False. The right to bare arms mean to protect yourself with whatever weapons are "in common use of the time". The arms that are to bare are both limited and unlimited. Limited by what is popular in the time of the people. Unlimited as future popularity is ever changing. As for your final two sentences, if you wish to insult me on "proof" perhaps you should get some yourself. By the way most U.S. history classes (except for private schools) fail to elaborate the reasoning of the second amendment, therefore "going back to school" will be quite useless. "We should not give up the one right that has the only power of us being able to keep all our other rights." May I state that if the government truly, truly wanted to take away your rights for evil purposes, there is not a single thing you could do about it UNLESS the individuals are allowed to own tanks, mines and other heavy weaponry. A citizen with a gun is naught but a small grain of sand in comparison to the un-manned technologies that our government possesses. In conclusion, you have either failed or refused to address my remarks regarding: a well-regulated militia, inconsistent arguments, contradictory arguments, my scene regarding the criminal, the (inane) notion that banning guns leads to a Communist dictatorship of sorts, the death toll by firearms, the ignorance of our founding fathers, lethal advancements in weaponry, the lack of well-regulated militia, the lack of identification and mental status needed to purchase a weapon, the high crime rate and the fact that there are democratic governments who have a weapon that operate fairly well. I have effectively rebutted all of yours.
banning all guns is wrong

No, your absolutely wrong. The second amendment was not put in for hunting. You forget the part where it says to protect a free state. This meaning protecting ourselves from the government. Animals aren't going to try and take over our government anytime soon. Yes there are some good countries that have a ban on guns. But does that mean we should just give up ours? There is just as much evidence that the outcome could be bad as there is as much that it could do good. The right to bare arms means to protect yourself with a gun. Not bombs, tanks, or anything like that. You want proof? Go get your own by going back to school and taking a real US history class. We should not give up the one right that has the only power of us being able to keep all our other rights.
banning all guns is wrong

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 reason why we have this amendment is to protect ourselves, mainly from the government. many people believe that the government would never do such a thing. personally I don't think so either, or at least anytime soon. but what I "think" will or will not happen does not matter. now lets say the government wanted to destroy this country. could they? assuming they could owning guns would not matter. but as long as we own guns, the government will not be able to get too controlling without the people having a say in it. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU. it is up to you and only you to protect your self from an oncoming attacker. now lets say someone breaks into your house with some type of weapon ( not necessarily a gun). what do you do? try to talk them out of it? fight them? assuming your a guy, what do you think would be best for your family if someone came in trying to hurt them? call the police? it takes time for the police to get to your house. they don't just POOF and magically appear to save the day. yes it is true that there are more unjustified murders than there are justified, but that doesn't make it morally right to take away the best option for someone to protect themselves with. lets take a look at history. banning all guns always leads to evil dictatorship. now the reason why the second amendment was put into place was so that this would never happen. if we ban all guns, that could lead to this country becoming a communist country. even though this may sound like it would never happen, we can only make this mistake once.
We should have a ban on CCW

I am sorry to have to do this, but I'm going to have to bow out of this debate. I stupidly chose to start this only a few days before leaving for the Perimeter Institute, and now that I'm here, I have incredibly little time to devote to this. It's definitely been a good debate so far though, and I'd like to start this up again; perhaps we can even copy and paste the original debates into the rounds. Again, I'm sorry for having to do this, but I have no time to devote to this right now.
We should have a ban on CCW

I accept my opponent's challenge. For simplicity's sake, are we debating about gun control in America at a Federal Level? Also, I agree with no semantics, but that does not allow for sloppy or careless wording, but, judging from your record, I don't think this will be a problem. Furthermore, I will be arguing a "No-Issue" policy at a federal level (this is the policy Washington, DC has), meaning that extreme exceptions will allow for concealed weapons, but as a whole, weapons will be nearly impossible to obtain for the general public, as there are some extenuating situations which may require the use of CCW. Also, I would argue a shared burden of proof, since this is a hot topic for debate and there are several states which have a "No-Issue" policy, effectively a ban, in place.
We should have a ban on CCW

CCW -- Conceal carry [handgun], in this debate we are arguing shall issue laws. Ban -- Prohibit Should -- A desirable state No semantics or trolling. 1st round acceptance for contender, instigator (me) does the usual thing. BOP on PRO for being PRO and against the status quo (most states have CCW). Characters -- Maximum, 8000 Time to argue -- Maximum, 3 days Voting period -- Mid, 2 weeks
Is 1/3 = 1

Contention 1: 1/3<1Let's do some comparisons. 1/3 as a fraction, is equal to .333 repeating. Assuming that we are only using real number and not the imgainary number i. 1 is indeed =1. Let's apply this to real life. I have 1 pizza and I have to split it between my two friends and I. I would only get 1/3 of the pizza and not the entire pizza. My friends would 2/3 of the pizza which is .667. The two would =1. The reason for this is that we have to consider the appropriate number of significant figures. (http://www.chem.sc.edu...) You see at the end of the allotted significant figures one must round up the last digit. so indeed .9999 repeating would =1 due to the sig fig rule, but the resolution is weather or not .333=1. I have shown through the significant figures rule that indeed it would not. as .333 would not be able to round up to even .334, as 3<5 so .333 would remain as .333 and as a fraction .333 would be 1/3 of the whole number of 1.
Is 1/3 = 1

Suppose this was not the case, i.e. 0.9999... != 1. Then 0.9999... < 1 (I hope we agree on that). But between two distinct real numbers, there's always another one (say x) in between, hence 0.9999... < x < 1. The decimal representation of x must have a digit somewhere that is not 9 (otherwise x == 0.9999...). But that means it's actually smaller " x < 0.9999..., contradicting the definition of x. Thus, the assumption that there's a number between 0.9999... and 1 is false, hence they're equal.
The USFG should regret the Patriot Act

This is for Bsh1's Team Debate Olympic Tournament, and this is the bronze medal round. I am partners with TN05 and ThinkBig is with fire_wings. As such is the case, neither of these debaters can vote.Full text of the resolution:The United States federal government should regret the passage of the Patriot Act.Definitions:Regret- to express remorse forShould- used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediencyRules:No semanticsNo trollingNo kritiks/counterplansNo new arguments in the final roundBoP is sharedIf ThinkBig or Fire_Wings have any issues with the resolution or definitions they wish to add, he must contact me to change it before we begin. Once the debate starts all rules and definitions are accepted.Structure:Round 1- AcceptanceRound 2- ConstructivesRound 3- RebuttalsRound 4- Conclusions
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

Disadvantage 1 - More Deaths by Drug Overdose If this is treated as public health, then more people will die from drug overdose. Do you want Joaquin Phoenix to go the same way his brother River did? If so, then treat it as a public health matter. Disadvantage 2 - More Depressed People Heroin is a depressant, so if more people have legal heroin, then more people will be depressed. This will also cause the confusing mix, Speedball, to be legal.
"atheism" is not merely Lack of Belief but believing that God doesn't exist

"" Do you believe in Unicorns?" Unless unicorns are proven to not exist I must remain agnostic on unicorns. "The Easter bunny?" Is just a bunny, of course bunnies exist. "ghosts?" Yes "Zombies? Vampires? Werewolves? Santa Claus)" YHWH(The Father, and The Son and The Holy Spirit) wouldn't allow there existence, I believe in YHWH therefore I not only don't believe those things listed don't exist, I know so. Santa Claus though we know for sure doesn't, no ones up at the north pole. Now, 'You now can hopefully see the truth." I object to this off putting, The Opponent refused to answer my rebuttal I gave the debate, which is, "a Lack of belief, not holding a belief, or not believing can only be due to these 2 reasons 1, Uncertainty, which is "agnosticism", 2, Believing God doesn't exist which is "atheism" One cannot be uncertain while at the same time believe He doesn't exist. it's They Believe(Theism), or don't believe, and if they don't believe they either are Uncertain if He(YHWH) exists which is Agnosticism, or assert that He doesn't which is "atheism" In order for my opponent to give a proper rebuttal he must prove how it is possible to believe God doesn't exist while being uncertain of His existence." Instead of doing that he cowardly off put and talked about unicorns and tooth faires, which is irrelevant to this debate, as this debate is strictly about the definition of "atheism", in which the opponent has failed to provide any proof for "agnostic atheism", one as I have proven cannot be both an "atheist" and "agnostic". If one is an "agnostic" they claim uncertainly, if one is an "atheist" they assert. The opponent claimed that "atheism" is a lack of belief, however "agnosticism" is a lack of belief as well. A lack of belief is due to either 2 reasons, 1, Uncertainty of whether God exists 2, Believing He doesn't exist. Until the opponent can prove that one can bother be uncertain of His existence and believe He doesn't exist,(which is a contradictive impossibility), he has been refuted.
"atheism" is not merely Lack of Belief but believing that God doesn't exist

"In order for my opponent to give a proper rebuttal he must prove how it is possible to believe God doesn't exist while being uncertain of His existence." Do you believe in Unicorns? In Santa Claus? The Easter bunny? The Tooth Fairy? ghosts? Zombies? Vampires? Werewolves? If you answered no to any of them are you 100% certain of their non-existence and if so what is your certainty's logical origin?You now can hopefully see the truth.
"atheism" is not merely Lack of Belief but believing that God doesn't exist

The Wikipedia link of "agnostic atheism" that you posted which says, "Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known" That is Illogical, a Lack of belief, not holding a belief, or not believing can only be due to these 2 reasons 1, Uncertainty, which is "agnosticism", 2, Believing God doesn't exist which is "atheism" One cannot be uncertain while at the same time believe He doesn't exist. it's They Believe(Theism), or don't believe, and if they don't believe they either are Uncertain if He(YHWH) exists which is Agnosticism, or assert that He doesn't which is "atheism" In order for my opponent to give a proper rebuttal he must prove how it is possible to believe God doesn't exist while being uncertain of His existence.
"atheism" is not merely Lack of Belief but believing that God doesn't exist

Lack of belief, or not believing leaves with only 2 possible reasons for the lack of belief, 1, Uncertainty, which is "agnosticism" 2, believing that no god exist, which is an assertion If it isn't the 2nd then one isn't an "atheist" but an "agnostic", therefore making "atheism"'s definition to believing that no deity/deities exist.
fair trade

dear Con, thank you for your arguments, let me now present you some more arguments. Firstly, Fair Trade is trade farmers can count on. Fair Trade is committed to strengthening direct partnerships between buyers and producers. These partnerships provide an avenue for buyers to purchase quality products from people they trust, and offer a sustainable and reliable way for farmers, artisans and their families to improve their livelihood. Fair Trade also means sustainable local economies. Fair Trade gives farmers and artisans control of their own future. They can build their own businesses, rather than working for a middle man, and the profits stay in their communities and go back into their businesses. Fair Trade also means what you buy matters. By choosing Fair Trade products, you are not only accessing high quality products, you are making a difference in the lives of the people who grow the food you eat and the goods you use. Closing, Fair Trade connects you with other cultures. Fair Trade products are unique to the places they come from and the people who make them. Farmers and artisans are involved in the entire process, and Fair Trade products reflect the people and cultures they come from.
fair trade

By fair trade I mean A movement which strives for fair treatment for farmers. In a fair trade agreement, farmers, who in other situations might be more susceptible to the will of the purchaser, will negotiate with the purchasers in order to receive a fair price for their products. Farmers who engage in fair trade also aim to pay their workers a fair price, and engage in environmentally-friendly practices. Fisrtly Fair Trade means fair pay and working conditions for farmers and producers. Fair Trade products are made in safe and healthy working conditions, where farmers and producers receive a fair price and have a voice in how their workplace is run. Fair Trade is also safe. It actively promotes integrated farm management systems that improve soil fertility and preserve valuable ecosystems, and limit the use of harmful agrochemicals that present dangers to farmers" health. That means food that"s safer for you and for the people who grow it.
God is Necessary for Objective Morality

Contrary to what my opponent has argued, moral facts cannot be derived from "logical relationships" of the nature that he has described. Unlike statements such as "1+1=2," moral facts are about what ought to be--not just about what is. Surely, various cultures and individuals can define how morality "ought to be" orchestrated in the context of their own behavior and in the context of their social communities, but how can any moral fact be viewed through an "objective" (or universal) scope? No individual or society can create extrinsic rules that act upon all of humanity; in order to have a moral system without boundaries that exists outside of (subjective) human consciousness, we would need a rule-maker with complete dominion over the universe. Moreover, to expand on the idea of "subjective human consciousness," we cannot derive specific moral facts from human nature, because they vary from individual to individual and from society to society. While we can see broad trends, we can also see very heavy variation, as we move from one moral outlook to the next. We always see questions about the morality of abortion or the consumption of animals, and different moral perspectives are taken to justify different stances--and the premises of these perspectives (e. g. , Murder is immoral) can be just as easily contested; indeed, the morality of a serial killer is an example of a human sense of morality, though an uncommon one.
God is Necessary for Objective Morality

For the purposes of this debate, I will assume that an objective morality exists. When we usually think about right and wrong, we usually think about a situation and deduce from that situation what is acceptable and what is not. In every moral dilemma we have people, objects, and possible actions. It is our jobs to determine which actions are right given these people and objects. If objective morality exists, then if you were all knowing you could deduce from every situation what is morally right and what is morally wrong. This occurs in the same way that correct politics follows from a situation and the way that we can determine what is going to happen in physics problems. The real world works a certain way, and from those logical relationships truth arises and can be determined. So if objective morality exists, it exists logically from the situations involving people and their problems. All truths about things arises from the logical relationships between those things. For example 2 + 2 = 4 arises from the relationship of 2 to 2 through the idea of adding. For this reason I see morality based on the innate nature and inter-relationships between people and objects in this world. For God to be necessary for the existence of morality, then he had to create it. But then the real question is, when God for example was creating the fact that murder is wrong, what basis did he use to compute his position? If there was no logical basis that makes sense, then morality was created arbitrarily. If morality was created arbitrarily, then why do I or anyone else have to follow it? If God based his decision to make murder wrong on some logical fact then it is that fact that is really responsible.
God is Necessary for Objective Morality

Objective Morality: The idea that notions of "right" and "wrong" (i.e., moral judgments) can be universal and fixed, regardless of their context (e.g., temporal setting.) (If the opponent disagrees with this definition, it can discussed further in the comments... and possibly revised. Otherwise, it will stand.)I will be arguing that God is necessary for objective morality--or, in other words, an objective morality cannot exist without an existing God. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
THBT the investigations of MH370 should be halted

Thanks pro,And we with the refined sattelite data, we now have several potential leads thanks tot he new search area:. http://www.bbc.co.uk...Several Chinese families refuse to accept the demise of their loved ones, in spite of the current evidence. Therefore it's even more imperitive we find the wreckage in order to provide closure to these families and for investigative purposes I mentioned in my first rebuttal.