BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban Civilians Ownership of Firearms

Sorry for the previous round. I was gone and did not have WiFi for a few days. The debate at hand is whether to ban ownership of firearms for civilians and I will be speaking against this motion. My first line of argument and principle idea is self defense. Government, the head of affairs in your country, is always concerned for the safety and security of the people. You implement bans and take away their guns, you will be taking a large part of their security from them. You can not just have the people on your country to be unsafe and insecure. There must be a strong, stable and collective sense of security in the country. Would you want some random person to walk into your home and kill you? No, you want to have a fighting chance and without a gun you can not. People should have firearms. Another thing that the ownership of guns between normal people does is that it increases the amount of people standing up for themselves. Even if people do not use their firearms and just keep them around it acts like a symbol, it symbolizes something very important and also increases a person's confidence who realizes that with a firearm he/she is better protected and thus feels more safe. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. With these tragedies in mind, we can conclude that an armed society is a safe and secure society. I would also like to talk about the crime factor in this round. When someone or some people approach you and try to harm you, what would you do if you had a firearm? You would fight them and defend yourself obviously. But on the other hand, what would happen if you did not have a firearm? You would have helplessly handed your things over or maybe taken a beating and disrespected and there are also chances that you would have gotten shot like the Waynes. If you have a firearm at times like these, the risks are reduced. Crime rates are climbing all over the world, society is tainted and governments are not doing much about it. But we as a country can. Everyone having guns would lead to a society with less crimes, because criminals about to commit a crime will think twice now, since everyone owns a firearm and the criminals chance of success will be low as there are people who can now stand up and fight for themselves now. In Switzerland everyone is required to own a gun and their crime rate is literally at the bottom of the world and it is ridiculous to hear government officials say that banning guns will stop gun crimes. Will a criminal go into a house with or without a gun? It is something people really need to prioritize and resolve. Completely different is the United Kingdom, who have strict firearm regulations and a lot of crime. So, does this not prove that firearms will make a better country. This concludes my argument
Ban Civilians Ownership of Firearms

No guns doesn't mean there can be no self defense. We can take less lethal options. I think your argument is begging the question. Youre assuming less guns will make more crime and that guns keep people safe. Assume the position to argue for the position isn't a sound tactic mate. You said "Another thing that the ownership of guns between normal people does is that it increases the amount of people standing up for themselves." This can be a good thing but it looks like its more of a bad thing. More people standing up for themselves will create overconfidence. We don't want people shooting or brandishing weapons over small disputes. You said "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated." You copied and pasted this from one of those conservative chain emails. http://mediamattersaction.org... In the soviet union guns were still hard to get. You had to be rich in order to get one. And Hitler made gun laws less strict. http://en.wikipedia.org... He disarmed the jews but many didnt wish to fight back anyway and correlation doesn't necessarily mean there's a causation You said:"what would happen if you did not have a firearm? You would have helplessly handed your things over or maybe taken a beating and disrespected" Yes because nobody could ever defend themselves before firearms existed. There no other way to stop violence other than a firearm. Your line of reasoning is silly to the point of absurd followed by blind assertions that guns prevent crime. You said: "In Switzerland everyone is required to own a gun and their crime rate is literally at the bottom of the world and it is ridiculous to hear government officials say that banning guns will stop gun crimes" Haha yeah the swiss military members can have their guns at home but they can't have ammunition and they can only keep their weapons if they have a special license. http://en.wikipedia.org... and your Switzerland didn't stop a mass shooter when he stormed Parliament and killed 15. http://www.nytimes.com... Your arguments only take a small sample and you're trying to deduce an argument from that. If we want good results we need a large rigorous study. This is to remove any type of statistical anomalies. We have a study that does this. It is the largest study on guns ever and it found that more guns equal more deaths http://ajph.aphapublications.org...
The US has the strongest military

"no we never lost the vietnam war because we never surrendeered when we left it became a war between north and south vietnam before it was a war between north south vietnam and also the USA now while we was there and the north conqured south vietnam then you can say we lost cause we would have surrendered but we never surrenered at all so therefore north vietnam did not beat US (THE BEAT SOUTH VIETNAM BUT NOT US) or we did not beat north vietnam.... man iam not trying to be mean or anything but your source is wikipedia man anybody can go in there and change stuff around you could be using false information and people are trying to belive you and you are using false informatoin you could be posting the wrong information up here on the debate" Well at least I used a source. You could be making it up, so show me the proof. "if we do not have the strongest military in the world how come all countires in the world turn to us when they are in trouble or in a promblem or being threated by another country if another country is bullying them they run to us and we always go help them why don't they turn to russia or china no because they have faith in us because we are the strongest military in the world" Really? Because I don't remember if North Korea has ever asked us for help, but prove me wrong. I don't know if you're making this all up since you don't have any sources to back up your statements. So, prove to me that the US has the strongest military in the world. Right now you have no proof.
The US has the strongest military

no we never lost the vietnam war because we never surrendeered when we left it became a war between north and south vietnam before it was a war between north south vietnam and also the USA now while we was there and the north conqured south vietnam then you can say we lost cause we would have surrendered but we never surrenered at all so therefore north vietnam did not beat US (THE BEAT SOUTH VIETNAM BUT NOT US) or we did not beat north vietnam. ok if we do not have the strongest military in the world how come all countires in the world turn to us when they are in trouble or in a promblem or being threated by another country if another country is bullying them they run to us and we always go help them why don't they turn to russia or china no because they have faith in us because we are the strongest military in the world and man iam not trying to be mean or anything but your source is wikipedia man anybody can go in there and change stuff around you could be using false information and people are trying to belive you and you are using false informatoin you could be posting the wrong information up here on the debate
The US has the strongest military

Just because supposedly we had lost less soldiers mean that we won? We were in the war, but after we withdrew all of our troops from Vietnam, South Vietnam was forced to fight for itself. In the end, communist forces got what they were fighting for "they had toppled the Saigon regime". So, I would think that because we did not help South Vietnam win the war till the end of it, it allowed communist forces to win, and therefore we lost the war. [1] Just because we were able to go to the moon does not mean that we have the strongest military. If the U.S. had the thinnest TVs, does that mean we have the strongest military? I think not. My opponent has no reason for me to believe that we do have the strongest military. He has the burden of proof in this debate and he must show me why the U.S. has the strongest military. As of yet, he does not convince me. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The US has the strongest military

Ok you like other people say we lost the vietnam war but you see we apromixatly lost 59,000 soldigers in vetname now the vietnemse lost 3.8 Million solidger ok so we were stright up beasting them but you see after a while we just pulled out of there there was no surrender from either sides we just left so lets relate this to an example in WW2 we went to germany we were straight up beasting the germans but they were killing us to just like we were doing with the vietamese so if we just left germany are you saying we lost to germany to no because if we just left we did not lose we jus got out of there and also America has the most advance technology in the world let me givre you an example America landed on the moon in 1968 we have been the only country in the world to step foot (or have a man walk on the moon) now other nations has set up probes up there but no toher natioon has walk on the moon so that proves that america has more advance technology than any of the 194 countriues around the world http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com... http://www.answerbag.com... these are my sources
The US has the strongest military

Thank you for this debate. I would agree that the U.S. has a strong military, but I would not agree that it has the strongest military. "A military is an organization authorized to use force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or perceived threats." - Wikipedia "...we have never lost a war" Yes we have, it was called the Vietnam War [1]. "...our technology is supierior to other nations" What technology are you talking about? "...we made the first atomic bomb and we have the most nuclear weapons" We did make the first atomic bomb along with the cooperation of Canada & Great Britain. But we don't have the most nuclear weapons, Russia does [2]. Therefore the U.S. does not have the strongest military since my opponent has not provided a valid reason that the U.S. does. Sources: 1. http://www.historycentral.com... 2. http://www.fas.org...
Sincere belief in Leprechauns is equally rational to sincere belief in Gods.

In response to your rebuttal, I have a short and long version. The short version: Your counter-argument, riddled with logical fallacies, failed to show any error in the tenets of my argument. The long version: My premise that both beliefs lack empirical evidence was not refuted by a single example you put forward as empirical evidence of the existence of Gods. If there existed such evidence, faith would not be required. A simple demonstration of the test that yields the quantifiable and observable evidence would be sufficient. This is exactly how a person judges the validity of any other truth claim. The necessity for faith puts theistic beliefs in the realm of unfalsifiability, which is logically fallacious. The same is true about any supernatural claim that cannot be tested, only believed on poor or no evidence. To address some of the points you brought up: 1. You spent a lot of your counter-argument making comparisons between God/s and Leprechauns as if somehow the importance of one belief vs the triviality of another changed the nature of the belief itself. That's not the case. The fact still remains that both beliefs are void of empirical evidence to confirm them and both claims are unfalsifiable, making both beliefs equally plausible, equally unsupported and equally rational/irrational and thus, those who hold the beliefs on either side should be equally respected for it, whether the Leprechaun crowd gets more respect or the God/s crowd gets less, it makes no difference. To show that my argument's premises are wrong, more than just anecdotal evidence and opinion are required. 2. I never claimed that believers in Leprechauns were or should be more respected than believers in God/s. I claimed that they should be either respected equally for their beliefs or ridiculed equally because the justifications for their beliefs are identical. 3. You brought up morality from religious texts as an evidence that a belief in God/s is more rational than a belief in Leprechauns. Not only is this a non-sequitur as it has absolutely no bearing on the argument put forward, but the notion that religion carries with it a moral superiority is patently false. There is not a single moral preaching that can be made or moral action that can be taken in the name of religion that cannot be made or taken by a non-believer for morality's sake. On the other hand, there are countless examples of evil, immoral statements and actions that can ONLY be made or done in the name of God/s. When it comes to morals, it's best to avoid religion as an example worth following. But again, completely unrelated to the rationality of believing in the existence of an unproven entity. 4. Appealing to authority is another logical fallacy that does nothing to prove the truth of your argument. Sir Isaac Newton believed in the practice of Alchemy. Smart people can also have wrong ideas and beliefs.
Sincere belief in Leprechauns is equally rational to sincere belief in Gods.

The notion that belief in leprechauns and belief in God/s is equally rational is ridiculous. From a historical context, the belief in God/s has been tied to man's spirituality whereas the belief in Santa, Easter bunny,leprechauns and other cultural mythical and frankly other made up figures that stem from superstition,are tied to amusement of children ,commercial considerations and culture. No one Prays to leprechauns for help(generally) while since the dawn of man countless humans have turned to a Godhead figure. To claim that believers in leprechauns are more respected than people who believe in God/s is make belief, firstly more people on earth believe in God/s while most people acknowledge that leprechauns are as real as Santa,also the us dollar note states in God we trust not in Leprechauns we trust, more proof of the absurdity of the notion that leprechaun believers are worthy of more respect. The empherical evidence to support leprechauns and Santa is zero,but the evidence to support the notion of a Godhead figure can be drawn from logical conclusions, scientific law as I.e the law of entropy, and the manner in which nature is organized among other things,depending on one's knowledge and sincerity among other things. whether or not someone believes in God ,the empherical evidence is more than zero, even to consider such a possibility based on any fact is more than zero whereas for leprechuens it is strictly zero.isn't that why children outgrow tooth fairies and leprechuens as a fact as opposed to faith,religion, God? Granted some drift away but an adult can one day believe in God but no adult can one day believe that leprechuens exist. (Normally) The moral lessons drawn from religious texts which we impulsively acknowledge are more evidence and of higher context than the message of greed that leprechauns propagate, isn't this evidence enough in itself that a sound comparison between the two is like comparing something with life to something without life? I have never heard of a human being willing to die for leprechauns but countless people have died and are willing to die for God and gods, such conviction can not be dismissed as nativity or stupidity, rather as faith,something leprechauns can never offer and something which is reinforced by ridicule many a times, as most who do the ridiculing are motivated by personal interests. Sir Isaac Newton believed in God but not leprechauns.
Sincere belief in Leprechauns is equally rational to sincere belief in Gods.

The belief in Leprechauns and the belief in God/s are equally rational. The empirical evidence to support each belief is identically zero. Positive existence claims for both Leprechauns and God/s are not falsifiable. Because these beliefs are identically rational and plausible, it follows that Leprechaun believers are due a higher level of respect and influence in society that believers in God/s currently and historically enjoy or else believers in God/s deserve a higher level of ridicule and institutionalized mental help enjoyed by believers in Leprechauns.
A crowbar is the best melee weapon in a zombie apocalypse.

In this round I will defend my own case against my opponents attacks. My opponents first point in attacking my case was that baseball bats break and change according to type, but first I would like to point out that I specified a wooden bat, rendering my opponents next two arguments pointless. Second, I would like to state that wooden bats withstand 5,000 pounds of force on average for every baseball it hits in professional games. (. http://www.livescience.com...). To crack a human skull, it takes only 16 to 196 pounds of force. (. http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk...) This does not take into account any rotting in the skull, which will weaken the brain's protection significantly. My opponents second attack states that vibrations in the bat could cause pain to the user. But the solution to this is simple, a leather covering or gloves will reduce or eradicate any painful vibrations caused by impact. My opponents next attack is once again useless, not applying to the wooden bat I mention. But, my opponent then states that a baseball bat is heavy enough that a user would be quickly tired. But a wooden baseball bat averages around 30 ounces, and with the original bat, about 3 pounds. The average crowbar however, weighs between 15- 30 pounds, tiring any user much quicker.
A crowbar is the best melee weapon in a zombie apocalypse.

For this round I would like to argue on the effectiveness and usefulness of a crowbar in the instance of a zombie apocalypse. First I will argue my opponents first point, which is that a crowbar can be used for prying open locked or jammed doors. First, I would like to state that in a zombie situation, many doors are going to be locked for a reason, whether containing a room full of zombies or a room full of people. Very few would enjoy stepping into this situation. Also, prying open doors with a crowbar takes an unbelievable amount of strength. My opponents second contention states that a crowbar would make an extremely effective weapon, but I doubt this fact sincerely. First I would disprove my opponents statement that this weapon could be used for piercing in two ways. One, the shape of the weapon would create the factor that to stab, one would need superhuman thrust forwards or an angle from beside or behind a zombie. With a zombie's sense of smell and hearing, this angle would almost be impossible to get to. Finally, once this angle was achieved, if ever, the point of the crowbar would be very easily stuck in, with the forward bit of the zombie's skull wrapping behind the point. And as a quick side note, a penetration from the softest spot of the skull, (being the eye socket) would not reach the cerebellum, which controls movement. This spot is in the very back of the brain, covered on all sides by skull or, in the case of a zombie, useless brain material. Now I would like to argue the effectiveness of a blunt weapon from a crowbar. While a crowbar could break through a zombies skull, this would not be quick, and fractured skull fragments would form behind the bar, causing difficulty pulling out. Now, I would also like to state that the studded bat is much more effective in this manner. Finally, I will point out the problems in the upgrades my opponent mentioned. First, my opponent stated that creating a grip on the crowbar would lessen the likely hood that one drops the weapon, but on the contrary, a weapon stuck in the head of a falling body would simply drag the nearly attached person down. This concept also applies to the strap on a crowbar. In the case of a hoard, being dragged to the ground is exactly how one is taken out. Finally, my opponent stated that sharpening the crowbar will increase its effectiveness, but once again, I can prove this false. First, sharpening the point on a crowbar will make it weak, and nearly useless in the case of locked doors. Also, sharpening such a point would be vastly difficult with the materials at hand, and be a huge waste of time, when a weapon such as the studded bat needs no preparation once made or found. Thank you for reading and I look forward to the next round.
A crowbar is the best melee weapon in a zombie apocalypse.

Good luck, and the format is, 1st round is Intro, 2nd is Con's of the other weapon, and 3rd is Pros/counter The con's of baseball bats differ according to the type, A wooden one has been shown to break a average of 1 a game in 2008 when hitting a baseball and would most likely break after repeated use, also a wooden baseball bat's weight is centered in the end of the bat making it hard to swing/handle.A aluminum baseball bat will bend over time and if bent back will be structurally weaker.A composite baseball bat at lower then 50 degrees can shatter causing damage to the user of said bat.Also a baseball bat if not hit in the correct spot will cause vibrations causing pain to the user.Metal baseball bats are hard to drill through and the light weight makes it require upper body strength and a wooden baseball bat makes it heavy to run around and with repeated lifting or might exhaust the user.