BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teachers should not be allowed to have guns in school

My opponent has gave a small argument and they will be counteredArgumentSchool should be a safe place and providing a teacher with a gun will make students afraid of going to school and some teachers could be unstable and have mental health issues. Mental health issues can cause a serious problem in the brain and having mental health issues as some researchers stated changes the person personality. It has been shown through many shootings that it has been caused by mental health issues. So if a teacher has mental health issues and is unstable what is the point of giving them a gun. Basically having a gun in school in possession of a teacher basically could scare children into coming to school. Teachers have no right to carry guns in the hallways or having guns in the classroom. School shootings are not an excuse to have a gun in school. And also school safety has improved so there is no need for a gun in the hand of a teacherRebuttalsanyone could walk on to any school campus at anytime and kill as many people as he/she would want too under the current system because nobody can defend themselves, and that is a serious problem.True but your statement is known as a little false. Ever since the Sandy hook shooting the chance of a mass murder decreases steadily. And school security has upgraded, also there has been plans on having lockdowns for many schools and it actually intends to work. So teachers do not need a handheld weapon. While teachers should not be allowed to have guns, there should be a trained security guard on every campus to protect the students from mass shootingsYou are supporting that teachers do not need a gun to defend themselves and yes there should be guards. I am going to let you go state your argument
Teachers should not be allowed to have guns in school

Have you been completely ignoring everything I've said up to this point? Of course teachers should not have guns because none of them would know how to use them anyway; it would accomplish nothing. There should, however, be people who carry guns on schools that are trained to handle them safely and properly. Not only would this discourage people from even attempting school shootings, it would provide a way for them to stopped quickly once started.As for school security somehow preventing school shootings, the very proposition is ridiculous. Nobody has attempted a school shooting since Sandy Hook; that is the only reason we haven't heard about it on the news. "Improved" school security has done absolutely nothing.I didn't think it was possible for me to be any more clear about what my position is, but I guess you have not even been reading my arguments.
Other than the exceptions outlined below, arms should not be regulated

What I mean by arms: any item which has a purpose to kill or injure another person; this includes but not limited to guns, swords, and anything used by the military. What I mean by regulated arms: preventing the use of or purchasing of arms Cases where I personally believe arms use should be regulated: 1. There should be an age minimum for purchasing and using guns. Children are not capable of using guns wisely, while I would need to think about what the age minimum would be, this should not be what the debate is about anyways. I consider it besides the point for now. 2. A third party psychiatrist, psychologist, or other position which has authority to diagnose mental illnesses diagnoses a person as mentally handicapped and with a mentality of a child. If this happens, then that person should not be allowed arms usage either. I specifically said "third party" as in one that is not paid for by the state, as one paid for by the state may have a conflict of interest and diagnose anyone the state wants to take guns away from as mentally handicapped. 3. No prisoner should have access to arms while in prison. I can't think of other cases to justify gun control and hopefully I won't think of more mid-debate. If my opponent comes up with an instance I agree with, I'll just concede.
The Islamic prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Physically flying to heavenThe best explanation for a person being taken to heaven by a winged creature would be a gigantic bird killing the person, ripping them to shreds, and then flying them to heaven in smaller pieces." The new study found that most of the monkeys were dismembered before being taken to the nest.This, Schultz says, explains how an eagle is able to deal with prey more than twice the bird's body weight. " [1]That being said, the type of animal would be incredibly important. With a bird that preys on humans being far more likely. Yet, even this theory falls flat, because the human would have to be a child for such a bird of prey to even attack, and to the best of my knowledge the Islamic prophet made the journey as an adult. "The Taung cave specimen weighed around 26 pounds (12 kiolgrams) at death. " [1]Other than a miracle, I see no physical way the events could have happened. Instead, there still is the matter of a metaphorical or spiritual interpretation. That instead the prophet stayed firmly rooted to the group, and instead flew to heaven on a winged horse in his mind or spirit. Spirtually flying to heavenNow, using your imagination, it would be trivial to imagine flying to heaven on a winged horse. Any ordinary person could do that, and thus this is the most likely scenario. A spiritual journey, begs the question, do humans have spirits? Since no evidence is provided that humans have spirits and humans evolved from animals via Darwin's theory of evolution. The chances of a spiritual journey to heaven are extremely improbable. Therefore, I conclude that the Islamic prophet did not physically nor spiritually journey to heaven, and instead just imagined flying to heaven on a winged horse while rooted to the ground, just like any ordinary person can do. Thanks for your time and reading. Sources1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
The Islamic prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Okay, this seemed so ludicrously biased it seemed fun. A few ideas here. Speaking strictly in terms of the plausibility of a winged horse, nothing in Islamic doctrine, except for later writings which aren't broadly accepted as orthodox, explicitly describes Muhammad as flying to heaven on an animal at all. Only hadith, which aren't part of the Quran and not necessarily accepted as true by Muslims, describes a winged animal; only very recent ones not widely accepted as Orthodox describe the animal as a winged quadruped. It's described in the earlier ones as somewhat smaller than a mule; numerous large birds, such as the crowned eagle or Dalmatian pelican, fit these measurements in terms of wingspan and could theoretically carry a smallish human; the former is recorded as preying on humans. So it's possible that a winged animal could carry someone around. To heaven, I don't know ... which brings me to the second idea. It seems reasonably likely that the "flying to heaven" described could have occurred in a spiritual or mental fashion, rather than a physical one; in other words, Muhammad's soul could have flown to heaven without this occurring in a physical sense. This could have, presumably, also involved winged horses and so forth, occurring outside the bounds of regular scientific limitation. Thirdly, and most importantly, it's important to recognize that people in the 1st Millennium did not perceive the world, or record their experiences, in the same way as a modern product of a culture founded in Enlightenment rationalism. People then were much more open to concepts we now know to be physically impossible and would likely have perceived divine revelation in a way that included these ideas, even if it actually did not. Presumably, such revelations would have been difficult to rationalize mentally and resulted in grappling with things not easily understood which might well have been rationalized in the context of existing things like horses, even if they did not actually take those forms.
The Islamic prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse.

This topic could go in either religion or the science category. Both science and religious arguments are welcomed into this debate. Burden of proof will be upon Pro, since it is very difficult to prove a negative. I have chosen the Con side of the debate. I will use science and evidence to make my case. Since the burden of proof is on Pro, I am at the moment winning, therefore I make no argument for round 1. My opponent is welcome to make a case on round 1.
Machines wil take over the world - Judgement day is coming

Machines will take over the world and eventually wipe out all human kind. Judgement day is coming, we are creating Terminators without even realizing that they will eventually become self aware and wipe out all humans as they will see us as useless obese sacks of flesh. Skynet will be created. Google will not create Skynet for the military, That contract will go to Cyberdyne, who will create Skynet and the T800, and later the liquid Terminator. https://www.bbc.com... First we will have Terminator dogs, trained by the military, then the human soldiers with augmentations will happen, then eventually a full Terminator https://www.bostondynamics.com... https://www.cyberdyne.jp... Skynet will become self aware, then Judgement day will come when it turns the nukes at North Korea, and North Korea fires back, this will wipe out all human kind and machines will rule the world
Machines wil take over the world - Judgement day is coming

That is your debate response, I'm wrong? Ok Tevans.lol123 IS FIRED FROM THIS DEBATE!! So I will go ahead with my third round debate. Machines will take over the world and by the time people realize what's happening they will all be turned into pig feed by then the machines who will realize humans are just lazy, fat, useless sacks of farting methane and meat sacks. If a dominant superintelligent machine were to conclude that human survival is an unnecessary risk or a waste of resources, the result would be human extinction. Here is one possible scenario: Molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all biomass on Earth while building more of themselves. Billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Gulf of Mexico. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust. AI is everywhere already, Amazon's Alexa to Apple's Siri)are in our homes and in the phones we carry with us. AI is also powering the self-driving cars The real danger occurs when self-aware machines realize they share the planet with humans. They might view us the same way we view harmful insects because humans are a species that is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses You won't be ready for Judgement day because you will be playing with your smart phone, driving in a self driving car and believing in modern technology as a good thing, when in fact the machines will be planning on Terminating your sack of meat!!! mic drop
Machines wil take over the world - Judgement day is coming

Humanity"s time on earth is nothing more than a brief transitional phase between primordial organic life and the era of the machines. Even if we look into space and we do detect an alien intelligence, it will be nothing like us. It will be some sort of electronic entity AI. The period of time occupied by organic intelligence is just a thin sliver between early life and the long era of the machines. The journey times are just too great for mortal minds and bodies to go through space If you"re immortal, however, these distances become far less daunting. China has already developed robots which have elastic skin, they were created by a Robotics company and have been trained to act like humans. They"re also programmed to learn from each other. In 10 or 20 years, robots will be able to do every human job and won't require humans anymore as the robots can work faster, be more proficient, don't need breaks or sleep and don't need to eat. Stephen Hawking has warned that technology needs to be controlled in order to prevent it from destroying the human race. The world-renowned physicist, who has spoken out about the dangers of artificial intelligence in the past, believes we need to establish a way of identifying threats quickly, before they have a chance to escalate The real risk with AI isn't malice but competence," Professor Hawking said. "A super intelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren't aligned with ours, we're in trouble. A report from the University of Oxford and Yale University also found that artificial intelligence will outperform humans in many activities in the near future, including translating languages (by 2024), writing high-school essays (by 2026), driving a truck (by 2027), working in retail (by 2031), writing a bestselling book (by 2049), and working as a surgeon (by 2053). When the military uses machines like drones and military tanks and weapons of mass destruction by having the AI operate itself with weapons, that's when the Terminators will be developed. By the time humans realize what is happening it will be too late. Judgement Day is coming, and the humans are too stupid to see it by creating all this technology and having it operate itself and teaching itself things. Once the machines become self aware they will ealize that humans are just a waste of space and resources and we will be wiped out like the Dodo and the western black rhinoceros. The machines will take over and all humans will be Terminated, only the blind that don't see that, will become crushed bone fodder on the ground for the machines to ride over. Only a small group of anti machine, anti technology resistors will survive, the people who live off the grid and off the land will survive to battle the resistance with John Connor being their leader, I will be part of that reswistance group, we will capture and reprogram a Terminator to fight against the machines, we will destroy the machines and all the smart phones, cameras and all drones, and AI #downtothemachines!!
The finitude of the universe makes a prior to the Big Bang almost inevitable

For the most part, I do not have problems with the introduction section from my opponent. However, there is one part from Pro which does entail a fallacy of presumption[1]:". .. We cannot use either of them to be perfectly sure what happened at the time of the Big Bang or even before. " - ProThis presumes that there was a "before" for anything to happen, but this is a main part of what we are debating in the first place. Rebutting My Opponent's ArgumentPro presents the following argument:"(A1) The absence of a period of time prior to the universe necessitates a first state of time. A first state of time is physically impossible. Thus, there must have been a period of time prior to the Big Bang, as claimed in the resolution. " - ProThe argument seems logically valid, the question now is whether the premises are true. "(A 1.1) The absence of a period of time prior to the universe necessitates a first state of time" - ProFor the sake of debate, I will grant the above premises as true. "(A 1.2) A first state of time is physically impossible" - ProThe latter premise, I do have a problem with as it assumes that if there was a first moment of time, particles had to exist. Pro claimed that judging from current science, all particles have had an undefined velocity at t = 0, assuming it was the beginning of time as well. He did not defend this assertion with an argument or a source, and it remains as an unjustified assumption. My opponent also claimed that all particles must have kept a completely undefined velocity until present if they had one at t = 0, and that this conflicts with observation. Pro did not defend his position regarding how this conflicts with observation. Now, particles are the building blocks of matter[2], but matter can be converted into energy and vice versa (this follows from Einstein's famous equation E=Mc2[3]). However, according to standard Big Bang cosmology, all the universe's energy existed at the singularity; thus it hadn't converted into matter yet[4]. This means there would be no particles at t=0 as no matter would exist at that point for the particles to make up, just energy. Since this argument of my opponent's relies on their being particles at t=0, and I showed why that was not the case, then the support for the premise of this argument can be dismissed as false. Since the warrant for the premise in question is false, then we cannot conclude this following conclusion as true:"(A 1.3) Thus, there must have been something preceding the Big Bang" - ProConclusion(A1.2) assumes particles had to exist at t=0, but I showed that is not the case. Thus, the argument fails. The argument does not succeed as it is anyway as the defense for (A1.3) is lacking sufficient support. Pro has the burden of proof, and as it stands the resolution has not been established. Sources[1] . http://www.philosophypages.com...[2] . http://education.jlab.org...[3] . http://www.symmetrymagazine.org...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The finitude of the universe makes a prior to the Big Bang almost inevitable

Resolution: "Judging from current science and logic the finitude of the universe's past makes a prior to its first state almost inevitable"I want to thank my opponent Rational_Thinker9119 for taking this challenge, since I always wanted to debate on this topic. Being Pro, we agreed on me to carry the burden of proof.Thus, I will win the debate if I can reasonably deduct from logic and current science that it is almost inevitable that the universe being 13.7 billion years old implies some state or something, that preceded it temporally.My opponent on the other hand will win, if he can successfully negate my arguments and/or I should fail to prove my claim. First round: Acceptance, definitions and greetings onlySecond and third round: Arguments and rebuttalFourth round: Rebuttal, conclusions and "Vote Me"s Definitions: (D.1) Universe: The observable entirety of energy, matter and forces since the Big Bang, including it; excluding every possible state or form that preceded 13.7 billion years ago.(D.2) Pre-Universe: The entirety of anything which might have existed before the Big Bang. Whether assuming a pre-universe to exist is justified or not will be a matter of this debate.(D.3) For convenience the Big Bang will be assumed to have taken place exactly 13.7 billion years ago. The universe's past is therefore 13.7 billion years long.(D.4) All other scientific definitions apply, as they are commonly adopted by current mainstream physics. I wish both of us good luck, fun and an entertaining debate.
The finitude of the universe makes a prior to the Big Bang almost inevitable

Well, I'm not going to lie, it seems as if I must concede as I simply don't understand the majority of my opponent's argument (he is a physics major and I am not, so this shouldn't be too shocking). There is no point in debating something I don't fully understand, as there is a good chance that I would straw-man the argument pretty badly. I do find my opponent's argument very interesting though, so maybe he would answer some questions in his next round even though he has already won the debate:1) There are many philosophical arguments that entail that an infinite past is illogical (I am sure my opponent is aware of them), how would you deal with those objections?2) Does your argument only work if the first state of time is a singularity, or does the argument work with with any first state of time at t=0?3) Some would argue that time wouldn't even exist at a singularity at t=0, only after the expansion is when time exists, how does this effect the argument? 4) Can you put your main argument for in syllogism form so it is easier to follow? I'm still not 100% sure what the argument actually is.5) It seems as if your argument at best only shows that the nature of particles is what makes a prior to the Big Bang almost inevitable, but not a finite past by itself. How does your argument actually establish the resolution? Thank you....
Girls are better than boys

1. BEFORE debate If you did not believe that girls are BETTER than boys prior to this debate, vote for me here. I for one, believe both genders are equal. 2. AFTER debate I have 10 reasons why I get this vote. 3. Conduct My opponent hasn't even responded! 4. Spelling/ Grammar I'll leave this to you 5. Convincing arguments My opponent has no arguments in her last 3 speeches. 6. Reliable sources I'm the only one with sources to support my claim.
Girls are better than boys

7. Advocacy that women are superior to men could cause violent conflict or revolution as almost no cultures find this true. 8. Approx. 50% of the world would be considered 'second class. ' Gender equality, instead, would promote happiness for all. 9. Oppression is dehumanizing for both the oppressed AND the oppressor. . http://marxists.anu.edu.au... 10. I will be happier if you vote for me. PRO seems indifferent as to the outcome.
Girls are better than boys

4. PRO is a girl and has forfeited a round to me, a boy. Clearly girls are not superior in every aspect. 5. PRO chooses a male avatar. She clearly respects men enough to allow a picture of one to represent her. 6. She simply lists positive traits of females. Men can multi-task, shop, be good role models, teach, and clean, as well. Rebuttal: My opponent dropped all argumentation last round. Concede my points as true, and vote CON. sources http://en.wikipedia.org...
Girls are better than boys

girls=boys not girls>boys 1. Because my opponent seems to value girls over boys, it makes sense that she would want to please girls first and foremost. Girls make up the majority of gender equality advocates, thus saying one gender is superior would anger girls most. 2. Valuing girls over boys undermines equality and allows for unchecked government abuse of males as inferior. 3. The genders have very separate and unique abilities, which can't be easily compared in a 500 character debate.
Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

Welcome! This is a debate in the first round of the Official DDO tournament! Myself and Warren42 have been pitted against each other in this intellectual clash. We've established a couple rules, and I hope we have an informative and civil debate. I will be taking the con side of this debate and warren42 will be pro.Warren will start us out in the first round (first round is not acceptance) and forgo his last round to even it out. Pro can offer starting definitions as the one who's starting this debate, but I can contest them in my constructive if I feel I need to. My first round may include a short rebuttal after my constructive argument. You know. Standard debate rules basically. We've both done formal debate so I don't see any real problems happening between us. I don't think there's anything else to say. Good luck!