BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Texas' open carry law is a stupid idea

Thank you for disqualifying yourself by not showing up for round 2. I will give you my time, since you have given me the win. 1. My opponent states: Saying the open carry is a stupid idea does not negate the 2nd amendment. She is missing my point. if it were an idea, then it would not be a law. If it were an idea, it would not be a practice. If it were an idea it would not be allowed. It is NOT an idea. It is a law. The whole premise of my opponents point is this is an "idea". It is not an idea, it is not a concept, it is not a thought, It is real thing legally allowed to be done. 2. My opponent states: As you can see, the 2nd amendment, requires neither open, nor concealed carry. The right to do something requires nothing. The right is a choice. Any right is a choice. You can exercise that right, or not exercise that right. Any law that allows one to open carry gives that person more choices. avenues that allow for people to legal exercise their constitutionally protected rights are not stupid. 3. My opponent states: Saying the open carry is a stupid idea does not negate the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment prevents the government from infringing on the rights to bear arms. Open carry is how guns were displayed 1820. People did not hide a holster in their ankle. If they had a rifle, it was in plane site. When pistols became an option, The gun was their hip in a holster. If you can accept the right to bear arms as stated in the constitution means the right to carry, then for historical reference that means the arms must have been on display. Constitutionally speaking, the displaying of arms is much historically accurate than having a pistol on an ankle strap above a sneaker but under a pair of jeans.
Texas' open carry law is a stupid idea

Saying the open carry is a stupid idea does not negate the 2nd amendment. Nor does concealed carry negate the 2nd amendment. Let's look at the difference: 2nd amendment: 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 Open carry: the practice of openly carrying a firearm on one's person in public. concealed carry: the practice of carrying a concealed firearm on one's person in public. As you can see, the 2nd amendment, requires neither open, nor concealed carry. My opponent is tasked with explaining, just how open carry is, as he put it, a right, given the above definitions. Simply Citing the 2nd amendment as a reason to support open carry, shows a complete ineptitude of the second amendment itsself 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu... 2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 3. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Texas' open carry law is a stupid idea

It is not a stupid idea. It is a law. Are there any other rights you think are stupid ideas? The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from disarming the citizens. The founders of this country went to war Vs their country (England). They believed the first amendment to be the number 1 thing to cherish. If the first amendment was taken away, that leaves the people with the 2nd amendment as a way to fight back.
Evolution is fact.

1. No missing link found Missing link between what and what? Apes and humans? Several different human ancestors (for one example, the Neanderthal man) have been found and studied. For more examples, look at the chart at http://www.handprint.com... . If that's what you meant, then your argument is simply wrong. 2. Apes are not having human children This demonstrates two fundamental misunderstandings of evolution. First, macro evolution certainly doesn't happen in a single generation. Humans developed over the course of about 6 million years. Second, evolution doesn't say that humans evolved from apes. It says that humans and apes at some point shared a common, now extinct ancestor (see the above page). 3. no sign of further evolution Of macro evolution? The theory has existed for less than 200 years. Obviously no massive changes in species are going to occur over such a short period of time. But we definitely have observed examples of micro evolution, which makes up the building blocks of macro evolution. See the case of the peppered moths. 4. why do some animals evolve and not others What? All species that can reproduce are capable of evolution. Which species, exactly, are you referring to? 5. where did monkeys come from They evolved from some earlier mammalian ancestor. I don't know exactly what the genealogy past the old world monkeys is, but I can look it up if you want me to. 6. what force dictates what different evolution I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you clarify the question? 7. where did the original organism come from This is called the prebiotic soup theory. The prebiotic world was comprised of an oxygen deficient atmosphere containing molecules such as carbon dioxide, methane, water, and sulfur dioxide. The ground was a hot sea of water and other such basic molecules. Constant lightning strikes provided the energy for these molecules to rearrange into simple and complex organic molecules. This has been proven by the Miller-Urey experiments, which simulated the conditions of the prebiotic soup for one week and came up with sugars, lipids, amino acids, and adenine. These molecules over time arranged themselves into more and more complex forms and eventually created a simple bacteria which had the ability to reproduce.
Evolution is fact.

1. You give explanations to how it could happen. That does not make it fact. No where close. The Ancient Egyptians used to believe that the rising sun was the Sun God riding his chariot through the sky. This is an explanation. Obviously it is not fact. 2. No, I am not claiming that mutations do not occur. I am claiming that they do not play a part in evolution 4. Why do some animals not evolve? What causes some to become extinct. What makes some live but not others. You have never explained this. 6. I defined natural selection in a way that it is not evolution 7. My point is, for you, something created everything. Then evolution occured. This makes no sense ***I don't know what to say. You haven't proved evolution as fact. You used the thought process that micro evolution is fact so macro evolution is fact. I do not call it micro-evolution. It might not be called natural selection but any one who has read this knows the "alternative" I state. Call it whatever. I do not believe micro "evolution" is evolution. You still haven't proved it is
Evolution is fact.

1. Oh, so you're accepting that evolution can happen, but not that it did happen? Fine, I'll delve a bit into the specific evidence for evolution. The fossil record shows many of the 'missing links' that you claimed didn't exist. Nothing accounts for the presence of these fossils except evolution. The presence of vestigial, useless organs (the appendix, for example) can only be accounted for by the fact that ancestors used those organs for a specific purpose. Comparative anatomy shows similarities between related organisms that cannot be accounted for by complete coincidence. My personal favorite is embryonic development, which shows the evolution of man in fast-forward. Did you know humans have GILLS at one point in their development? To accurately go into these and really prove it would take entire textbooks, but I can happily suggest further reading if you'd like. 2. So are you claiming that mutations in gametes don't exist? NOW you're disputing pure fact, proven by chemical analysis in a laboratory. Micro evolution by way of mutations has also been PROVEN by observing bacteria in petri dishes. If you don't concede this point, then I'm more or less fed up with the debate, because it is cold, hard, observed fact. 4. As I said, they do, and they have. All current organisms have evolved from earlier ancestors. We have observed it in bacteria, and can effectively prove it with all other species. If you're asking me to list each of the millions of species that exist and prove that they evolved...then no. 6. I've told you this. It's caused by natural selection, which is dictated by random mutations, which is dictated by molecular movement in the nucleus and ribosomes of cells, which is dictated mainly by electromagnetism. 7. Jeez, how far back do you want me to go? The raw matter for evolution came from the earth. The earth came from leftover space material gathered by the sun. The sun came from a star-spawning nebula. But we're already waaaaaaaay beyond the scope of evolution. This is about evolution, not the origin of the universe. And we know what the composition of early earth's atmosphere and ground was by studying deep-crust rocks. Once again, you can read a textbook if you want undeniable proof, but it's there. I'll respond to your final paragraphs: First, I'll give you an extremely simplified and slightly flawed logical argument for evolution: 1. Micro evolution occurs. (Proven in laboratories) 2. Macro evolution logically follows from micro evolution. (Macro evolution is simply the culmination of random mutations that occur from micro evolution and natural selection. At some point, we arbitrarily draw the species line.) 3. Macro evolution occurs. Your idea of natural selection once again excludes the possibility of random mutations, which absolutely do occur. Lastly, the ENTIRE scientific community accepts evolution as fact. Show me an accepted, renowned scientist who doesn't accept evolution and you have a point.
Evolution is fact.

1. No, I am asking you to prove that evolution is fact. Plain and simple. That's what the topic that you wrote is. So far, all you have proved is that a person can travel from point A to point B, but not the medium of travel. You haven't proved anything about evolution being remotely fact. 2. So you claim that a single mutation in a gamete causes one individual to be superior, and that gene prevails through future generations? I don't believe it. For exmaple, look to humans and say hair color. If what you said were true, brown hair color would be the norm, and a mutation caused it to turn blond. And that one person reproduced and spawned a new generation of blonds. No. Different gametes such as this are not evolution but simple reproduction. My dad has blond hair and I have brown. Is that evolution? No. So you still haven't proved evolution. 4. All have the ability, sure. My question is why don't they! 6. This would be the answer to number 4 to an extent. What causes evolution! What makes the gametes change? You have no explanation to evolution 7. The point I was trying to make was you didn't prove where anything came from. Evolution is fine until you get to a point where evolution must have came from something. And that something is what I am asking you. Furthermore, you ignored by comment that the lab that "recreated" the first organism might have been wrong. Once again, how did he know all those chemicals were there back then, in that place? So you have proved nothing about macro-evolution. Sorry. All you said was natural selection. But as I was expanding on, natural selection, not through a change in genetics, but just differences. Such as, say Hitler would have ruled the world. He would have killed all those not blond-haired blue eyed people. Thus they live on. This isn't evolution. This is a phenotype that helps them live. It is not a genetic change in gametes! And to your comment about my comment evolution is not fact. it is not accepted the same way by everyone.
Evolution is fact.

1. You're asking me to prove, without a single doubt, that evolution is true exactly as we believe it? That's a completely absurd request. Can you prove to me, without a doubt, that George Washington was the first president of the United States? The thousands of documents that we have from the time can't prove it the way you want me to. What I'm saying is that all the evidence scientists have ever acquired, involving the fossil record, vestigial organs, embryonic development, etc., all point toward evolution being fact. The only reason it's called the theory of evolution is because we haven't watched it under laboratory conditions. But the evidence we have is superfluously enough to effectively prove evolution. 2. Congratulations! You've just disproved a Lamarckian view of evolution, which hasn't been prevalent for the past 200 years. What actually happens in micro evolution: Random mutations are present in all virtually gametes (as observed experimentally). Some of these mutations are beneficial to an individual's survival. Those mutations are rooted out by natural selection and passed on to future generations. Eventually, enough of those mutations pile up to make new generations be considered a new species. Your basic conception of natural selection is wrong. 4. I said all species have the ABILITY to evolve, and all have from the original common ancestor. If you had looked more closely at the ape evolution chart on that earlier link, you would have seen that all modern day apes have evolved from earlier, now extinct common ancestors. On that note, species go extinct because they are outcompeted by other, more 'highly evolved' species. How is that inconsistent with what I said? 6. Um...electromagnetism, mainly? The force that drives chemical reactions? I still don't know what you want me to say. 7. Oh, come on. You're going to have to try harder than that? What causes lightning...are you serious? And the age old second law of thermodynamics question? You don't seem to have the prerequisite basic understanding of evolution I asked for. Onto what you deem 'micro evolution'... 3. Natural selection. And no, you haven't. 4. Again, natural selection. And I would love for you to extrapolate on your ill-informed idea of natural selection. And I'd also like to respond to your comment: "I do understand evolution. sethgeeko13. But as evolution is not fact, there are different interpretations of what evolution is and how it works. Thus always with theories." Wrong. The entire scientific community (creation scientists don't count) unanimously agree on the workings of micro and macro evolution. The only questions people disagree on are things like the exact evolution of man from homonidea.
Model Debate

The quality of my debates may suck a little, because I am rushing. .. LEE001. Tyra Banks Age 41 How can you think of female modeling and not think off The wonderful Tyra Banks? . http://www.space-fox.com... (I don't know how to add the picture without the link) With over 20 years of Modeling . http://2.bp.blogspot.com... She even started her own show! . http://images2.fanpop.com...
America was not justified in dropping the bombs on Japan.

Since I am pro, I will define the terms. Justified means were they right to drop the bombs without fair warning. I believe that the US was not justified in bombing Japan. If they had given Japan proper warning before dropping the bombs, and Japan had refused to make peace, then the US could have dropped ONE bomb, not two. Around one hundred thousand people died as a direct result of the bombs. Even though millions more died during the war, that does not condone killing more. This is why I believe America was not justified in bombing Japan.
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL My Opponent: 2VC: She has implied that military action is preferred over sanctions when diplomacy breaks down, thus killing the people that oppose us politically as opposed to a more conservative form of punishment. This is how she defines justice. VP: Her second attempt at a criterion appeared irrelevant. C-1: She concurred that at least in the hypothetical, well defined sanctions can be successful. I did not state that this has been accomplished, I stated that it could be accomplished, to which she agreed. C-2: I placed the blame of the horrible trickle down effects incurred by the citizens, upon the leaders of the corrupted governments. Sure we all feel badly for the innocent people affected, however; I stated that the blame is on the leadership. This was dropped. C-3: Ideological benefit is defined as the government placing the sanctions experiencing a satisfaction of feeling a position of authority because they had served a punishment on an offender. The degree of success of the imposed punishment, as deemed by others, is irrelevant. The fact is that a punishment was levelled for a perceived injustice. MY CASE: Natural rights of citizens are denied when a corrupt leader interrupts the harmonious relations and it becomes necessary to impose sanctions. Further, I extend my VPC in that when the naturals rights of other nations are infringed upon by these corrupt leaders, political justification demands punishment in the least destructive manner after diplomacy has failed. Economic sanctions are successful if they are clearly defined from the outset. An example may include, but limited to: collaborated refusal to trade for a specified period of time, blocking/inspecting all shipments, and freezing of financial assets for a specified period of time. A successful sanction, as defined by the imposer, could simply be intercepting of an arms shipment. Just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, success depends on the terms set by the issuing government. I concur that corrupt leaders may have the ability to obtain things through illegitimate sources (black market), or even legitimate sources (countries refusing to participate in the sanctions). Even though the citizens are not the targets yet seem to suffer the most, and further still rarely conduct an uprising, that strengthens my argument. Even if sanctions strengthen the resolve of the corrupt leaders, it does not mean that the sanctions have been unsuccessful unless that is a portion of the definition of success. I thank my opponent for her argument thus far and await her 2AR. Also thanks to the readers. I request that votes are not all 7 pointers unless they are in fact worthy of the full 7 points.
Should kids bring phones to school

To start off my argument, I'm going to define the word "kids" as people who are younger than 16 years old. Kids do not have any real emergency to that of an adult and education doesn't require mobile phones. Parents can easily call the school's phone instead of a mobile one and inform the kids whatever they need to know. In addition to that, kids need interaction with their friends. Phone decreases the social interaction between people. Kids before the 90s didn't need phones to survive.
Should kids bring phones to school

Should kids bring phones? I think they should. It would be helpful for emergencys. They could keep it in there lockers so they wouldn't be distracted. They can bring it on bus and talk with friends who are on a bus. It will help for socialization as long as they don't text they could just talk and enjoy them selfs. It could be very benefitical if they use it at the proper time in the proper place.
Murderers should be sent away to be eaten by cannibals.

Nevertheless: My opponent has done nothing but constantly contradict himself. He says one, that sending them to cannibals will save money. This is off topic which points should be taken off for becuase money is not a point in this debate. Secondly my opponent states that electricuting people do not hurt. He never stated that he has been electricuted before so therefore again he cant make that statement based on other people. Everyone has a different feel for things. Thirdly my opponenet states that sending the criminals to cannibals will serve them the right punishment. Being eaten is not a punishment, on paper it seems like a punishment but if you think about it, its just you being eaten by another person. One of my classmates bit me badly on my neck and it did not hurt at all, so this shows being eaten doesnt really affect you alot. Fourthly, my opponent states that this can lower the hungry peoples death rate. ABSOLUTELY NOT, all this is doing is increasing it, my opponent even stated that he has never met a cannibal and most of them usually gets colon disease so he just proved me right there. Then lastly my opponent talks about when I said has he ever seen anyone who has eaten another human being and lived and then he says "How many people do you know who have climbed Mount Everest and lived", this makes no sense because him and I are talking about two things, eaten people and electricution not ways in which you can die so my opponent does not have a legitimate response to this debate. I believe I should be the winner because of false details and being unable to answer my responses and defend his own. Thanks for this great debate.
Murderers should be sent away to be eaten by cannibals.

My opponent has failed to refute my points about pain. He then uses my argument in saying ". .. how would you feel if you heard you are going to be sentenced to electricution or be hung. " There are a few problems with this. First of all, like I stated above not all murderers get the death penalty. Secondly, most murderers do not get the electric chair, I am pretty sure no one gets hung anymore. In most cases today the judges simply give the murderer life in prison. Although the electric chair and life in prison are frightening, it is nowhere near as frightening as being shipped to another country to be eaten. My opponent says that the word 'electric' scares people more than the word 'eaten'. I really doubt that statement, especially since most people know the electric chair does not really hurt. As I briefly stated above, many people do not get the death penalty these days. Instead, they are put in clean prisons, fed well, participate in sports, watch television, write letters, ect. .. All these things are being paid for by working Americans via taxes. This system is extremely flawed, seeing as they murdered an innocent person. If they were instead shipped to the poor to be eaten, the amount it cost to deal with the murderers would go down. The extra money could be used to build park, schools, or even feed our people. My opponent says that people shouldn't eat other people unless they have to. If my opponent looks at my source, he will see that it states how many people die from hunger. Sending these murderers to poor villages would in the end save peoples lives. Even though there may be side effects, it is better then letting them simply die. My opponent's source proves nothing to the public. There is a fee (which I am not willing to pay) to read the article he provides. The little preview is not enough proof needed for his argument. I will say however that most meats have things in them that are not healthy. Men who eat red meat as a main dish five or more times a week have four times the risk of colon cancer of men who eat red meats less than once a month. (1). My opponent asks me how many people I know that have lived a long time after eating human meat. Well, I have never met a cannibal, seeing as to they are rare in the USA. But this does not prove anything. I could say "How many people do you know who have climbed Mount Everest and lived? " Just because one does not know any does not mean that they don't exist. My points remain un-refuted. This is my last argument, so lets recap. Sending proved American murderers to villages in poor countries to be eaten by the citizens living there would: 1. Punish the criminals properly. 2. Satisfy the family and friends of the victims in knowing that the offender came to justice. 3. Feed hungry people/lower the death rate. 4. Save money on taxes. 5. Give the USA more money to build park, schools, roads, ect. .. I would like to thank my opponent for this fun debate. I urge the audience not to vote bomb. Sources: (1). . http://www.detox.net.au...