BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun ownership has a positive effect on society

But because my opponent has forfeited this round, I will have to argue the two contentions as statements, even without much explanation. Let us begin with:Contention 1. "Guns have a positive effect on society and thus they are a right"It is the second part of this contention which struck me, and I now realize that it is a logical fallacy. Guns having a positive effect on society doesn't make them a right, it merely makes them a good thing. By my opponent's logic, if we proved that stealing had a positive effect on society at one point, it must be a right. Which is obviously absurd. Contention 1 does not prove the resolution. Contention 2. "Any and all attempts to restrict guns is a prerequisite of dictatorship"My opponent has made it clear, by saying "any and all", that he means "any and all". In other words, any type of attempt to restrict guns is a prerequisite of dictatorship. 1. Thus making a barrett .50 cal illegal would be a sign of dictatorship. Now how does that make sense? There is a very good reason this kind of sniper rifle is illegal: it's so completely dangerous. The M82A1 sniper rifle, similar to the M107, can blast through 2 inches of concrete, and accurately hit targets at 1,800 meters away. (. http://www.vpc.org...)Obviously, not everybody should have access to such a weapon. In the hands of a mal-intentioned civilian, it could deal serious damage. But that is just one example: many other guns should be restricted for safety of the public due to their insane high power. Imagine an m32: a semi-automatic grenade launcher, available to the public.2. My second response to this is that since my opponent used the word "attempt", and said that all attempts qualify as a prerequesite for dictatorship, we can assume that even a failed attempt to restrict guns is a prerequesite. Obviously, you can see the logical fallacy in that claim. As Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof. So far, we have seen no proof, only logical fallacies.
War on Terrorism

First 90% of terrorism might not be committed but terrorism from Muslims are the most extreme attacks. You also said,"If we sacrifice our freedoms ,but also restrict the freedoms of others. If we discriminate against people because of their religion ,and pass legislation against that religion...the terrorist have won." First we are not and never were discriminating against their religion they came into our lands and attacked us. If they expected us to do nothing about it after they killed thousands of our citizens well then they are wrong.
War on Terrorism

To conclude, I would like to address that I am not against restricting terrorism. We need more airport security, etc But the way we are addressing the war on terror is not good. We cannot defeat terrorists by taking away basic rights, passing anti-Muslim laws, or using horrific facilites like Guantanamo Bay. In Guantanamo, "suspected terrorists" can be held indefinitely without trial, in direct conflict with the US Constitution. There have been reports of illegal torture, and it's just not a good idea. I disagree with the increased Islamophobia. As I said, persecuting Muslims and restricting freedom of speech just because of some extremists really isn't smart. And going to bomb the hell out of all these Middle Eastern Countries can't help much, either Over 90% of terrorism in the United States is NOT committed by Muslim groups. If we sacrifice our freedoms, but also restrict the freedoms of others. If we discrimnate against people because of their religion, and pass legislation against that religion... the terrorists have won.
should the U.S colonise the moon

In ways I see the fact of low food and water, Whatever the matter, as long as there's no food and water, there's no way humans could live there.but there is a way for power as I see it there is the sun ... pure energy harvestable through solar panels.The solar panels costs an unbelivable amount of money to put into its process of producing energy on Earth due to the rare materials needed in order to make them and they also don't last long; easily broken. One thing global warming is already solved. ( just buy a smart car )That is not problem solved. Even though the smart cars solve the pollutions caused from the usage of cars, there are still prblems as factories polluting and producing green house gas, causing the green house effect. The poles are also melting; enough ice had melted that the average sea water level rised. Cancer, Cancer can be cured as there is already cures for Cancer just at a very high price. Cancers can't be cured yet. They could be prevented, prolonged, or stopped from going into later stages. Howver, fully recovering from a cancer isn't possible. In conclusion:The US shouldn't colonize the moon but concentrate on solving the current global problems on Earth and thereafter, colonize the moon. Thank you.
should the U.S colonise the moon

As I see it I feel that what the world knows is not all that they are saying to the public In ways I see the fact of low food and water, but there is a way for power as I see it there is the sun ... pure energy harvestable through solar panels. Also many monocles that are highly volatile can obtain enough energy for the possibility One thing global warming is already solved. ( just buy a smart car ) Cancer, Cancer can be cured as there is already cures for Cancer just at a very high price. Extinctions of animals, there are reserves for animals, but it wouldn't help that there poachers in the world. This is my end statement from Dragon_slayer489 Make your move END
should the U.S colonise the moon

To start I feel that the hole world is already looking for technologies that would be beneficial to the hole world. ( look at the cure for diseases already )They have been looking for technologies that would be beneficial to the whole world but they have yet succeeded. There hasn't been any technology that could solve deforestation, global warming, extinctions of animals, cancers, poverty, and many more. You can't catch fish with two hands or else you would lose both. Strengthening the technologies on Earth so that we could live on and on and have the time to invent new technologies to colonize the moon. Most people have see the moon as a bacon for the world, many also feel it should be explored in-depth.This could wait.Today ( this era ) I feel that the world if they wanted to they could colonize the moon or even another planet. ( reference to the movie avatar )It is currently impossible. The large amount of energy needed for the launching of a small spaceships that could hold only a few people is already so hard to get; let alone finding a spaceship big enough for enough people to get on and colonize the moon. Unless humans find new molecules that could give off more energy when going through the process of chemical reactions and materials that is strong enough not to break down after being hit by those energy, it is yet impossible. As early philosophers used to think the stars and moon where another set of worlds that held life.Early philosophers thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. Early philosophers thought that the Earth is flat. Early philosophers thought that things will float if the are shaped nicely and will sink if they have spikes or is not nicely shaped. As the earth the moon if had trees it would easily be livable to all races of the world . If the moon have trees, it wouldn't be livable to all races of the world. The moon is approximately 27% the size of the Earth and that is not enough to hold mankind and all other races in the world. Furthermore, the fact that there isn't any source of energy to provide us with heat, light, equipments, and other requirements for human to live and the fact that the atmosphere of the moon doesn't give protections from the intense radiation of the sun can't be ignored. Also, the temperature ranges from -153 to 123 degree Celcius, which is way beyond livable for humans. Not to mention that there aren't any oxygen, water, or food provided in the moon's nature. http://curiosity.discovery.com...http://www.space.com...
should the U.S colonise the moon

To start I feel that the hole world is already looking for technologies that would be beneficial to the hole world. ( look at the cure for diseases already ) Most people have see the moon as a bacon for the world, many also feel it should be explored in-depth. Today ( this era ) I feel that the world if they wanted to they could colonize the moon or even another planet. ( reference to the movie avatar ) As early philosophers used to think the stars and moon where another set of worlds that held life. As the earth the moon if had trees it would easily be livable to all races of the world .
should school be required

Thank you, kinger3040, for the wonderful opportunity to debate this topic. I am sure the audience are in for an invigorating debate!Negative CaseA1: Burden of ProofAs per debate standards, Pro needs an argument to affirm the resolution. Unfortunately, it appears that my opponent's sole argument is a reiteration of the resolution, so my opponent's sole argument is, if we are to take it as an argument to affirm the resolution, circular (i.e. school should be required because should school be required) [1]. As you may well know, circular reasoning is logically fallacious. If we are not to take this singular sentence as an argument to affirm the resolution, then Pro has nothing to affirm the resolution, meaning that he/she has failed to meet Pro's burden of proof. Either way, Pro fails to meet his/her burden of proof, thus I win the debate on this point.ConclusionAs the dust of this long debate settles, I hope you can see that despite my opponent's extensive efforts, Pro has not managed to meet his/her burden of proof. Again, I win the debate, on this point.Thank you, Con, for being terse with your arguments and providing an interesting opposition.Thank you, the voter, for reading =)Reference[1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates.

If the Fed pursues expansionary monetary policy by increasing the supply of money then the nominal interest rate will fall, investment will rise, consumption will rise. o interest sensitive purchases are less expensive o people save less and consume more o because the supply of money rises, people buy more goods and services. As the business cycle expansion gets underway, wealth rises and people buy more financial assets as well. the fall in the nominal interest rate will mean that net exports will rise since the value of the dollar will fall. Note that dollar denominated assets will have a lower return when the nominal interest rate falls and investors will no longer wish to hold as many dollar denominated assets as they did before. When investors unload their dollar denominated assets they take the dollars that they receive and purchase assets denominated in other currencies. When the value of the dollar falls exports are cheaper and imports are dearer. In sight of these points, I urge a Con Vote.
Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates.

My opponent tries to change the definition of "Exapansionary Monetary Policy" late in the debate. It was established early that "Expansionary monetary policy is "monetary policy that seeks to increase the size of the money supply" in the first round and my opponent accepted this definition. My opponent bases most of his arguments off of the fallacy that "Expansionary monetary policy is when the Federal Reserve is using its tools to stimulate the economy". My opponent also defines expansionary monetary policy as "the attempt to moderate the business cycle and control inflation by changing the quantity of money in circulation to change interest rates". Neither defintion is acceptable, for the definition was agreed upon in the first round. My opponent has sourced two claims that expansionary monetary policy does lower the interest rates. They claim this as if it is a fact and does not back it up. Further, my argument that inflation reduces the real value of loans, forcing banks to increase their interest rates has been conceded by my opponent. This overrides any temporary effect. Clearly, inflation overrides the intents of expansionary monetary policy.
Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates.

Definitions for clarity. Expansionary monetary policy is when the Federal Reserve is using its tools to stimulate the economy. This usually means lowering the Fed Funds rate to increase the money supply. This will cause mortgage rates to decline, consumers to borrow and spend, and businesses to grow, thereby hiring more workers who will consume even more. The opposite is contractionary monetary policy. Examples: If the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates, it is engaging in expansionary monetary policy. Monetary policy is the attempt to moderate the business cycle and control inflation by changing the quantity of money in circulation to change interest rates? (McTaggart et al, 1999: 27.2). In another words, it is the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)?s attempt to change the quantity of money and interest rates so as to affect aggregate demand and, ultimately, equilibrium real GDP and the price level. McDonald defines monetary policy as the government?s policy on setting the level of the money supply (1996: 149). Through this explanation by McDonald, Expansionary Monetary Policy does lower the rates especially in our (US) Status Quo.
Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates.

"Expansionary Monetary Policy vs. Contractionary Monetary Policy" This is not what we are debating (see resolution). "Expansionary Monetary Policy Wins! " This is irrelevant to this debate. "Purchase securities on the open market, known as Open Market Operations" This does not increase the money supply. It is just one of the ways that an increased money supply is put into the system after newly printed. . http://www.uri.edu... "Lower the Federal Discount Rate" This allows banking institutions to borrow money at a lower interest rates. This money is lent, and must eventually be paid back. This is not expansionary monetary policy, because in the long run, it does not increase the money supply. . http://www.bankrate.com... "Lower Reserve Requirements" This is not relevant to expansionary monetary policy. This does not increase the money supply; it merely allows banks to take more risks and lend more of their own money. . http://www.federalreserve.gov... Expansionary monetary policy is when the overall money supply is increased, not when government does things to lower interest rates. While the aim of expansionary monetary policy is to lower interest rates, expansionary monetary policy does not include all of the policy that actually does lower interest rates. "When interest rates are lower, the cost of financing capital projects is less. So all else being equal, lower interest rates lead to higher rates of investment. " Irrelevant to the debate at hand: this debate is not over whether lowering interest rates is good, but whether expansionary monetary policy actually does lower interest rates. This applies to the remainder of my opponent's arguments. ------------------------------- General response: What my opponent has defined as expansionary monetary policy, with the exception of "Purchase securities on the open market, known as Open Market Operations", are not actually expansionary monetary policy. "Purchase securities on the open market, known as Open Market Operations" leads to inflation by definiton, for the money supply is increased (which is the definiton of monetary policy). My opponent has not answered my argument that inflation overrides the supply and demand of the market so that banks cannot sustain interest rates below the rate of inflation; so, he has dropped this argument. This argument alone is enough to affirm the resolution. If expansionary monetary policy increases inflation, then it increases the minimal amount of interest required to maintian real value in its loans (though nominal value is retained). The result is an INCREASE in interest rates. So, the resolution is affirmed.
Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates.

Expansionary Monetary Policy vs. Contractionary Monetary Policy Expansionary Monetary Policy Wins! My Case; Expansionary Monetary Policy In the United States, when the Federal Open Market Committee wishes to increase the money supply, it can do a combination of three things: Purchase securities on the open market, known as Open Market Operations Lower the Federal Discount Rate Lower Reserve Requirements These all directly impact the interest rate. When the Fed buys securities on the open market, it causes the price of those securities to rise. In my article on the Dividend Tax Cut we saw that bond prices and interest rates are inversely related. The Federal Discount Rate is an interest rate, so lowering it is essentially lowering interest rates. If the Fed instead decides to lower reserve requirements, this will cause banks to have an increase in the amount of money they can invest. This causes the price of investments such as bonds to rise, so interest rates must fall. No matter what tool the Fed uses to expand the money supply interest rates will decline and bond prices will rise. Increases in American bond prices will have an effect on the exchange market. Rising American bond prices will cause investors to sell those bonds in exchange for other bonds, such as Canadian ones. So an investor will sell his American bond, exchange his American dollars for Canadian dollars, and buy a Canadian bond. This causes the supply of American dollars on foreign exchange markets to increase and the supply of Canadian dollars on foreign exchange markets to decrease. As shown in my Beginner's Guide to Exchange Rates this causes the U.S. Dollar to become less valuable relative to the Canadian Dollar. The lower exchange rate makes American produced goods cheaper in Canada and Canadian produced goods more expensive in America, so exports will increase and imports will decrease causing the balance of trade to increase. When interest rates are lower, the cost of financing capital projects is less. So all else being equal, lower interest rates lead to higher rates of investment. What We've Learned About Expansionary Monetary Policy: Expansionary monetary policy causes an increase in bond prices and a reduction in interest rates. Lower interest rates lead to higher levels of capital investment. The lower interest rates make domestic bonds less attractive, so the demand for domestic bonds falls and the demand for foreign bonds rises. The demand for domestic currency falls and the demand for foreign currency rises, causing a decrease in the exchange rate. (The value of the domestic currency is now lower relative to foreign currencies) A lower exchange rate causes exports to increase, imports to decrease and the balance of trade to increase. For these reasons I urge a Con Vote.
Expansionary monetary policy does not lower interest rates.

Expansionary monetary policy is "monetary policy that seeks to increase the size of the money supply." http://www.babylon.com... This belief is widespread because of its intents. While the intent of such a policy is to increase the loanable funds (therefore decreasing interest rates [supply and demand]) http://www.economyprofessor.com... , the inflationary result leads interest rates to sky rocket and ultimately the result is nullified and in fact, overpowered. Interest rates skyrocket because there is more currency units, and the dollar's value decreases. http://www.indepthinfo.com... When the values of the loans currently held by banks decrease, then the banks lose overall value. They then must make up this value, specifically by increasing interest rates. A bank cannot have its interest rates below the rates of inflation and expect to make a profit in real value. Therefore, as inflation increases, so do interest rates. I'll leave my case here until my opponent presents his/her own.
Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." I would go with the New Testament for the law first, then move to the OT. I notice that in your contentions, you talk about Leviticus the most, but stay out of I Timothy for the most part. First of all, you have been using the Septuagint Translation, so you have not been using the original language in that context, but a Greek translation of it. Second, I will try this one more time, anal sex in those days was closely related (and still is) to Homosexuality. So in their original tongue, the two were clumped together into one word. It would be redundant for them to say "homosexual anal sex." It would be like us saying "the dry desert" or "the wet water." In their culture, the two are so intertwined that they only had one word to refer to both acts.When you constantly refer back to Leviticus, you are missing the fact that the original Hebrew word for homosexual, "Hetruiopis", strictly means homosexual. You are not using the original text, but a translation.So, as you can see, God condemns Homosexuality and anal sex at the same time using a Greek word. It is best translated as "homosexual" though, because God was condemning homosexuality first and tacking anal sex on their as wrong too.Sources:http://www.biblegateway.com...http://www.christianbiblereference.org...http://www.homosexualityandthebible.org...http://www.homosexualityandthebible.org...
Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

"Admittedly, the original Hebrew and Greek are great sources for the original meaning in any Biblical passage. However, I wonder why every Bible translator for the past 2,000 years, save the modern day pro-gay translators (i.e. Queen James Version), have translated everything into the words "Homosexual", "Sexually Perverse", and "Sodomites". Interestingly enough, some words in the Hebrew actually mean more than one thing. I looked up that word online, it can be translated both ways. So God was actually condemning two things at the same time!" Again who cares what translators translate, we have The Original Language all we need is proper word study and grammar and where did YHWH condemn what 2 things at the same time? "As for Sodom and Gomorrah, God killed every person, save Lot and his family, because they were inhospitable? What? Plus, God condemned Sodom long before the incident with the angels." There you go, you admit it wasn't because of Homosexuality as you say they were already condemned. " Also, so what if it was simply for the purposes of violation" Because that was the purpose... The text never says it was due to Homosexuality nor does the text imply that they had Homosexual desires, they just wanted to violate, they could have had sex with Lot, arguing anything else is due to plain bigotry as I have already proven Sodom and Gomorrah was not condemned because of Homosexuality. "The translators and Hebrew are clear, homosexuality is a sin. " Prove it, all you have done is prove you are blind in this matter. "However, if you want to believe something God didn't say, you will find every way to take or add to the Bible." 1, Prove this, and 2, This is what you have done, which makes you hypocritical. Overall my opponent instead of refuting and providing any proof for Homosexuality, makes assertions based on emotion, which is not up for debate. If this person does not provide proof of Homosexuality being a sin, then goes on to take it as a sin, He adds to YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit)'s Word, anything added to YHWH's word is secular and therefore this person holds to a Secular "atheistic" doctrine against YHWH's Word.