BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The second amendment should be repealed

America is a different country then the ones you listed. This really does not factor into my argumentation. The logical step I take is clear, less guns means less death. This happens regardless of country, this is a universally applicable truth.Massacres are still going to occur even with guns gone, and you're right when you say it will decrease damage If you remove the weapon that allows these to occur, it ensures it does not. This is akin to saying arsonist will still burn buildings even if you remove their ability to start fires. This plan removes any ability for these massacres to happen, and there is no warranted analysis as to why it will not. They are going to get the gun illegally if they really want to. First, There is no analysis as to how these guns will be obtained. Second, you do not see this in any other nation with restrictive gun policy. Look to my warrants of Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Third, Even if someone were to obtain a gun illegally, authorities would be able to know instantly that said individual is breaking the law, instead of having to navigate a confusing web of legislation today. In short, it makes the identification of threats child’s play.
There should be a 2 strike rule for steroids in baseball

First thank you for joining this debate I will like to state my points just about steroids in general: 1) Multiple kids around the world are getting the wrong message from people such as Barry Bonds by taking steroids to do better in their sports. They not only end up getting caught, suspended and then they lose any respect they had for cheating. Also research shows that "Regarding the ease by which one can obtain steroids, 17.0% of eighth graders, 27.7% of tenth graders, and 40.1% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2006 reported that steroids were "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. " Even more encouraging by watching big league players take them 2) Steroids are also pretty harmful by causing a wide range of adverse side effects ranging from some that are physically unattractive, such as acne and breast development in men, to others that are life threatening. The important part is the life threatening which means that players are risking their lives just to get better at their sport. Also since there currently is the 5 strike rule that means multiple players are taking steroids after being caught multiple times, boosting their playing level greatly. Also since there is a 5 strike rule people don't care if they get caught because they know they will only get a minor suspension or miss a game or two while the more strikes that pile up the more severe the consequence. If there was only a 2 strike rule player's wouldn't do it that often knowing they would get suspended for a season or two for taking it once and then officially not allowed to play baseball for taking it twice. The two strike rule would reduce the amount of steroids taken greatly and make baseball a better sport. Thank you,
World war three is inevitable

A world war does not necessarily have to involve nuclear weapons. Also, the United States has many countermeasures that can deter any nuclear strike. We are able to target incoming missiles with ground-based and air-to-air missiles. And since Russia would not want nuclear weapons fired back at them, they would not launch any at the US. Instead, both sides would have to resort to conventional warfare units and tactics. And if the US were annihilated by nuclear missiles, then the world economy would grind to a halt. Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons would falter and World War III would be made a possibility since there is no threat of mass destruction.
World war three is inevitable

Thank you for the opportunity to debate against you in this, please note that "even though I may disagree with you, I will fight to the death for you to say it.Here is my argument:The world isn't likely going to break into WW3 anytime soon. Yes, major wars will happen at some point, but not in the near future. The major detergent for war is nuclear bombs, here's why.During the cold war, the Soviet Union and the United States were incredibly aggressive with each other but never directly went to war with each other. The reason is nuclear bombs. Even though it is very scary, nuclear bombs have prevent many wars. Both sides were afraid of wiping each other.Example: The Soviet Union launches 1 nuclear bomb at the United States. Then the United States launches 5 back in retaliation, the Soviets then launch 10 more at the United States. Then the United States launch all of their nukes at the Soviet Union. Then the Soviets then launch all of their nukes at the United States. And both side's allies launch all their nukes at each other also. After that exchange, the world would be plunged into a nuclear winter and be uninhabitable.Russia and the United States are not nearly as tense as during the Cold War. The closest we came to WW3 is the Cuban Missile Crisis.
World war three is inevitable

As I said before, neither country would attack each other with weapons of mass destruction because that would mean total annihilation for the other. Therefore, they would have to resort to conventional invasions. Russia is just like Nazi Germany in a sense. They are rapidly taking land and what are all the other countries doing about it. they have invaded Ukraine which is similar to what Hitler did with the many countries of Europe. He grabbed more and more land until the other powers had to appease him. Putin is testing the United States currently to see if we would actually be willing to go to war. His planes have buzzed ships and he seems to be taking tighter control over Eastern Europe. The United States does not want to get involved with Europe though because they fear it will bring about another cold war. A war in a non-nuclear country could be possible, but a world war involves forces from all over the world.
World war three is inevitable

If the United States and Russia did go to war, they would not invade each other due to the threat of nuclear bombs. So a conflict between them would be in a country without a nuclear stockpile. And neither side really even have allies that they care about without nuclear weapons. WW3 would have to happen if the United States, Russia, or China was invaded. If an allies of those countries were invaded, there might be a conflict but it would only be a proxy war such as Vietnam or Korea.
It is possable for someone to know that they exist

Rebuttal 1Its common sense that someone can believe something. People believe things all the time. At this moment you're believing that someone can't know that they exist. I believe that I'm wearing a green shirt right now. Some people believe in God. How is belief in one's existence any different? Rebuttal 2In 2 I was establishing that it is true that that person exists. It is based on 1 so the truth of 2 depends on the truth of1. I address that in rebuttal 1. Rebuttal 3Just like 2, 3 is based on 1, but 1 is not based on 3. 3 establishes that someone's belief that they exist is justified. This does not support 1. I support 1 in Rebuttal 1. Conclusion In the end Con's arguments come back to 1; That it is possible for someone to believe that they exist. As previously stated 1 is common sense. Con has said nothing to refute 1.
It is possable for someone to know that they exist

I think opponent for this debate! =Framework= Obs1: The topic uses the word "Know" This implied that this is a debate of fact, not of logic. Obs2: My opponent prove it is possible for some-one to know that they exist; at the point that not do this, they do not fulfill their BOP and I will win the round. Obs3: the BOP is entirely on my opponent, I do not have to prove some-one cannot know that they exist. thus my only responsibility is to refute my opponent's arguments. =Arguments= First my opponent's logic is flawed. 1. they claim that they a person could believe they exist. 2. This is is based on 1 which is only a belief; not proven fact. 3. Their logic is circular. 2 is based on one, and yet 2 proves one. "I think therfore I am." -Refer to obs1, this is a debate based on fact not logic. =Conclusion= - My opponent has proven nothing, thus you cannot vote for them. - I have disproven my opponent, thus you must vote for me. Vote Con Please! Also, =Sources= [1] They do not exist.
It is possable for someone to know that they exist

Someone can have knowledge of their existance because: 1: They could belive that they exist.2: If they belive anything they would have to exist just because they're thinking at all. This would make their belief that they exist true.3. Their belief would be justified from the fact that they are thinking. You can't do anything such as thinking if you don't exist"I think therfore I am. "They would have justified true belief, the definition of knowledge. They would know that they exist.
It is possable for someone to know that they exist

"According to Pro a belief is legitimate proof of an argument"I think Con misunderstands my argument. I am not saying that something is true just because someone believes so. I will rephrase my argument here. Fred will be someone who believes they exist. I will show that they can know they exist. ArgumentP1: If Someone believes they exist and that belief is true and justified, than they exist. P2: Fred believes he exists. P3: If Fred believes something, than he exists. P4: It is true that Fred exists. P5: Fred is justified in believing he exists. C1: Fred knows he exists. orP1:A,B and C-->DP2:AP3:A-->BP4:BP5:CC1:DP1:Follows from the definitions of to know and knowledge. P2:You have already agreed that this is possible. This is what 1 from my original argument was saying. P3:This and P4 was what 2 from my original argument was saying. You can't be doing something without existing. more specifically, you can't believe anything without existing. P4: Follows from P2 and P3P5: This is what 3 from my original argument was saying. Fred would be justified in his belief that he exists because he is thinking. If he's thinking, than he exists. C1:The logical conclusion If the rest is true. ConclusionI have shown logically that it is possible for someone to exist. I await Cons reply.
It is possable for someone to know that they exist

=Argument= 1. A belief is taken on faith, not fact. While I believe that Jesus Christ is lord and savior of all, I never would try and prove him to be in a debate; as it is a matter of faith. Now as an extension, while I believe Jesus is the only way to heaven Pastafarians believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only way to heaven. Now if beliefs where something accepted as legitimate arguments in any debate; than there is a paradox in place as many beliefs contradict each other. A believes that B is wrong; B believes that B is right. Both cannot be true, so one must prove that one or the other is right. 2. Extend from 1. 3. Extend from 1. =Conclusion= My opponent has only proven that a belief can be held, he hasn't yet proven that a person can know they exist. =Underview= I believe I will win and be given all 7 points. According to Pro a belief is legitimate proof of an argument so this is my belief. Also I believe my opponent has forfeited this debate, so the next round doesn't matter.
oversea companies

My opponent forfeited.His pseudoeconomic analysis about deflation occuring when companies returned to the US has not been backed by any source. Deflation depends mainly on money supply. Where goods are produced makes little difference. Infact Offshoring actually has a small impact on inflation: it decreases inflation (deflation) by reducing money circulation.(Corporate profit and costs abroad remove money from the real economy.) The point is that if every single company in the industrial sector decided to practice offshore outsourcing, there will be millions of people left unemployed and unable to spend money on products.So Unless others sectors can absorb these unemployed, this would harm the economy.http://cs.stanford.edu...Deflation during the great depression had nothing to do with production, the cause was the decrease in money supply (the exact dynamics are explained in the link below).http://www.sjsu.edu...
oversea companies

I will start exposing my arguments on R2 but I would appreciate if my opponent could clarify some of his claims :"Companies who are overseas should not come back over to America because deflation would occur and it will be just like the great depression"I will explain round 2 why this statement is false. But before that, I would like Pro to provide sources backing it. "Americans would make make products than that being sold and nothing would sell. Places like China, India and Iran would stop buying our products which means we won't make a profit. Overall, companies should stay doing what they are doing and continue making a profit! "Please explain me how exactly Nike's profit benefits you or me. There is no we ! The people and Multinationals corporation are different entities with divergent interests.
oversea companies

Oversea companies have recently been brought to my attention. The question i have been asked was about the prices and work wages that happen between different countries upon the United Staes. The question i was asked is as followed: " Companies like Nike make millions, maybe Trillions of dollars. They have companies overseas in places like China doing the hard work for less than $0.38 an hour making the shoes for less tan $2.00. They bring the shoes over to America which we then buy for close to $100.00 for a pair of shoes. Do you think this is right or should companies come back over to America? In my opinion, whoever buys the shoes are not smart enough to realize the profit big comapanies like Nike our making from us. I, myself, also buy oversea shoes and now realize how i am being used but that will not stop me from not buying the shoe. Cpmanies who are overseas should not come back over to America because deflation would occur and it will be just like the great depression. Americans would make make products than that being sold and nothing would sell. Places like China, India and Iran would stop buying our products which means we won't make a profit. Overall, comapnies should stay doing what they are doing and continue making a profit!
humans lives more important than animal lives

Okay. Let me start this off by saying I am new to debating and this is my first debate. humans lives will always be more important to the world then animal lives as human are what bring change in the earth. I haven't seen a donkey that was Steve jobs. And we give animals a good life. Animals are able to live with no regrets because of humans. Animals just co-exist among us, We are the centre of attraction, We kill animals everyday for our own consumption and at this point of consumption, It cannot be stopped (I think we can agree on this). when I look into your argument it says more about how we are destroying the world of animals making their life a living hell, If you suppose, You have not established the value of animal life and why it is worth more than a human life, With these points I don't think you have established the topic clearly. You have said "animal lives matter just as much as our lives" but you have to mention why. And I don't think you can compare a lion to a human. A lion might be the king of the jungle, But the human can burn the forest as he pleases. I know that this sounds sadistic but it is the painful truth. the only reason that I can possibly fathom that animal life could be worth more in the eyes of A human is the emotional connection with an organism that you cannot communicate with using words. And this itself is an illusion that is created by the human mind. And to contradict your points about humans destroying the homes of animals, I will accept that it is true, But at the same time the reason that animals still exist is because of us. Most endangered species are in sanctuaries or place where the last of their kind is preserved, This proves my point, Human intellect is stronger then that of animals. We have technology and knowledge. Which are the most fundamental things in life. I would like to end by saying that a human life is worth more than animal life simply because a human contributes to society than an animal ever could.
humans lives more important than animal lives

Did you know that we have been destroying animals homes for timber for more houses and other things that humans feel are not as important as animals lives? Animal lives matter just as much as our lives matter and we do a lot of things that completely ruin their lives, Their families and everything that they have to live for. Animals should be loved and cared for just as much as our lives and there are reasons for it. The needs of humans should not be above the needs of animals. Humans are causing deforestation to the homes of animals and are causing extinction, Among other issues. The first reason why we need to worry about animals lives is cause we are destroying their homes. Deforestation is the mass destruction of trees and hurts the climate and animal wildlife. Between 1990 and 2016 the world lost 502, 000 square miles (1. 3 million square kilometers) of forest. That"s bigger than south Africa. According journal nature"s website the Amazonian rain forest has lost 17% of its forest over the past 50 years. Not only does animals need trees so do we. We need trees for a variety of reasons. They absorb the carbon dioxide that we exhale. The greenhouse gases that humans create are also taken by trees and as those gases reach the atmosphere and global warming increases. National Geographic says that farming, Grazing of livestock, Mining, And drilling combined account for more than half of all deforestation. Forestry practices, Wildfires and, In small part, Urbanization account for the rest. The loss of clean water and biodiversity from all forests could have many other effects that humans can"t foresee, Touching even more than you're morning cup of coffee. The second reason why we should stop the killing and animal abuse is the Extinction crisis we have going on. Did you know that wolves are being persecuted and neglected by the U. S federal government. Unlike past mass extinctions with asteroid strikes, Volcanic eruptions, And natural climate shifts, The current crisis with extinction is caused by us-humans. In fact 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, Primarily those driving habitat loss, Introduction of exotic species, And global warming says The Extinction crisis article. The article also states that in the past 500 years, We know of approximately 1, 000 species that have gone extinct, From the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona"s Merriam"s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper, Passenger pigeon and Puerto Rico"s Culebra parrot- but this doesn"t account for thousands of species that disappeared before scientists had a chance to describe them. Nobody really knows how many species are in danger of becoming extinct. Noted conversation scientist David Wilcove estimates that there are 14, 000 to 35, 000 endangered species in the United States which is 7 to 18 percent of the U. S flora and fauna. This shows that the extinction is hurting our animals and plants.
atheism.just because its fashionable does not mean it has any merit

Thanks to my opponent for the challenge.Atheism has become fashionable lately in the u.s and british media with Richard Dawkins and comedians like Ricky Gervais and Bill Maher.Im all for free speech but some things bother me about these commentators,specifically... 1When these people attack organised religion they assume that A;all christians believe in a corporeal god.B;all christians believe in the genesis story of the bible as literal truth.C;You cannot be a christian unless you do and you cannot be a scientist unless you are anti religious. 2They assume that Evolution Theory disproves the existance of God.It does no such thing. 3They,especially Dawkins,claim that Evolution explains human consciousness.It does not and cannot.At least religion,all religion attempts to do this. 4They routinely attack organised religion through its crazies,fundamentalists and past atrocities while ignoring its moderates and its good deeds.At the same time they ignore the crazy atheists of which we have seen plenty this last century. 5Dawkins is a jackass and looks like he has not been laid in 23 years! Thanks again for the challenge.My last two opponents refused to debate me on my points.Hopefully you will.I dont expect you to convert me or vice versa but instead of attacking religion you should rebut my arguements which is chiefly about the underhand methods employed by todays Atheist posterboys.
Gay marriages are inferior to traditional marriages

1. By having both a legitimate mother and father, children are exposed to two diverse ways of life. Having both a mother and father provides a conditional and unconditional way of loving kids which is vital to development in kids. By having two partners of the same sex raise a kid there is a good chance that either the conditional or unconditional aspect of love will be missing which will significantly harm the child's development. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com... 2. Adoption between two people who are unable to produce by the laws of nature shouldn't be able to raise children as their own. To stop your rebuttal in saying that a sterile man and woman shouldn't be able to adopt then, I said by the laws of nature. In no situation can two men or two women make a fetus. If a sterile man and woman are married and meet the qualifications of adoption then by all means they should be able to adopt. 3. STD/STI's. Approximately 2% of the United States population is homosexual. But of all the people in the United States infected with HIV/AIDS, 61% are homosexual. This clearly shows a health risk towards those who are homosexual. According to Health24.com, "the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual,"mainly due to HIV/AIDS In a sampling of 21 different cities, roughly 1 in 5 men (%19.1) that have sex with men (MSM), were infected with HIV/AIDS and 44% of these men were unaware of their extremely dangerous condition. http://carm.org... 4. Mental health issues are also prevalent. Homosexuals are 50% more likely to be depressed or have substance abuse issues than straight people. Health24.com which is the source of this information states that, "the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle." There have also empirical tests that show, "there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment." http://www.health24.com... I realize that two of my sources are religious based but I'd like to establish that I am an Atheist so religion in this debate does not sway me either way.