BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun/bully control

What I mean by control is the fact the government clams that each citizen is born with natural rights and the ability to follow there happiness most people clam that control and taking away are different think about this you can't swear in school ok bear with me they clam they are controlling what you say but really taking away your right to say it that what I'm trying to get across here you can't control/ take away someone's natural rights given to you by being born in this country. The reason you don't see criminals with guns (RPGS, machine guns etc.) is because wouldn't it be kind be clear "Hey every guys I have a rocket launcher lets be friends." Before all the laws DID YOU SEE THAT DID YOU. You clam that people would walk around with machine guns and RPGS why didn't this happen in the past? As for my bulling argument when I use the term gay I mean that I am "bullying" them because I call them a name ONCE.
Gun/bully control

Like I've said, fully-automatic assault weapons will do damage. Do you deny that? The second amendment allows us the right to bear arms. Like I've said, the point that went uncontested, do you see people running around with sniper rifles? No. Why? I thought the second amendment gave us the right to bear arms, right? Just because we have the right to bear arms, the government will do what is needed in order to ensure the maximum safety for the citizens. Now, this IS NOT a debate on banning automatic weapons, or in fact, banning any weapons at all. Your wording was "Gun control", NOT "Weapon banning". It is therefore the burden of the Con to show why ANY forms of gun control are not to be issued. This includes background checks, and any other regulation. Gun banning for unneeded weapons should be issued. Answer me this: why do you NEED the automatic weapons in your home? Is it not also a violation, by your argument, to take away RPGs from citizens? Currently, citizens can't just flail them around. That is the Status Quo. Guns allow killing to occur much more easily than without them. I am literally lost on your whole bully argument. People aren't thrown in jail for calling other kids "gay", would you re-phrase that argument, I cannot understand what you are trying to say.
Gun/bully control

First I apologize for my spelling second I mean if you were to be told that you can't say what you want you would be mad right no put your self on the second amendment our founding fathers did NOT use words alone that's like saying that you shouldn't write with a pen or pencil because it could be use as a weapon how would you write. Plus forgive to the victims but just because there are shootings you blame guns how bout the Newton shooting was that just guns no he had a MENTAL problem. Martin Luther Kings J.R. assassination was that GUNS no his killer HATED him. As for bullying sorry my point went across wrong I mean you can't punish EVERY KID just because of others you clam that if I call my friend gay or even me and a group of friends vote to kick someone as our friend and we're called the bully not cool. Second if you have a problem with someone you don't go off and shoot them do you? No and what I meant by way of life was if your going to punish the bully just because they don't follow society what about the gays who FOR CENTURIES THEY HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST throw them in jail like people used to. Finally I apologize to any victims I offend.
Gun/bully control

I have little understanding of what you are even trying to say, but I will take this on, anyway. So, to begin with guns, correct me if I am wrong (It would be nice if you could attempt to spell), but you are assuming the position that any control of weapons, and any control of bullying is a violation of our natural rights. .. Well, the one thing I will agree with you on is that we have our second amendment. Sure. Does that entitle us to buy RPGs and equip them over our shoulders? If you are assuming the position that gun control is a violation of our rights, please tell me where it says that we NEED weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute. I agree, and I am not saying weapons should be banned at all. I am saying that making gun control laws has no violation of our rights. Are you telling me that your response to Sandy Hook, Aurora, Hood, Oregon mall shooting, your response is to do NOTHING because you think that trying to protect the citizens is a violation of our natural rights? It's the opposite, the government has the OBLIGATION to protect its citizens. With your criteria, everyone has the right to run around with sniper rifles. Criminals. Yeah, that's why we have gun control. Bullying? Are you telling me that trying to stop bullying is an offense on natural rights? Please, point this out to me. I'd love to know. You are saying that bullying is a bully's way of life? With that criteria, Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, and that is their way of life, and we should do nothing about it? What? Yeah, maybe we will put kids in jail if they stab another kid. I have made it clear that gun control and bullying are in no way a violation of rights. That is my job as the aff, you provided no resolution.
Gun/bully control

The concept that Gun and bulling are out of control is outrages to take away guns is a violation of your rights and insult the VERY THING that built this country might as well as take away the military Knifes and tell them to use there hands. Bulling has been around to FOR CENTURIES DON'T FALL FOR MISLEADING THING yes its sad for people to shoot other kids and themselves but your not helping by PUTTING KIDS IN JAIL its like putting gays in jail ITS THERE WAY OF LIFE.
People should be able to choose whatever religion without being judged.

DISCLAIMERPro only used his last round to try and shift goalposts. The debate was never about people only being judged by religion. I have not received any arguments. I'm not sure how this is a debate, but there is not much to say when Pro hasn't provided any arguments revelant to the resolution, or counterarguments.I have given two reasons why I believe people should be judged if they publicaly adhere to a religion...A1- Prejudice is often a good way to have possibilities about who a person could be, and then eliminate them as you know him to reach a proper understanding.Prejudice is not limited to what religion that person chooses. It could also involve that person's appearance. For instance, hippies usually let their hair grow and wear clothes that are out of fashion, and so seeing someone with such traits could mean that he is a hippie.A2- People who are public about their religious faiths are partially responsible of being judged.I didn't get any response on that.I'm not sure how this is a debate,Thanks for reading.
The abortion limit should be set at 20 weeks

Thank you, I expect this to be an engaging conversation. Now, as to where we draw the line. We do agree on the fact that a newborn baby has the same value as an adult. But where you say that the line should be drawn when the fetus attains the same amount of value as a fully developed being, I'd like to raise the argument that a newly conceived fetus has the same amount of value as an adult human being, (thus disagreeing with your first sentence). I don't agree that a fetus has to pass some sort of milestone marker in order to gain value in this world, because that would mean the fetus' value depends on its ability to feel, which isn't at all a very scientific, or ethical way to determine value. But with all of this, we'd be getting into what we define as value, and the total list of what value entails, but we'll stay on track. In my stance, I don't believe abortion is the answer. But we can talk about the whys later. So what I've gleaned from your stance, is that you think abortions should be legal as long as the fetus isn't caused pain? I appreciate your view of not wanting to hurt another life form, but the fact that the fetus can't feel pain doesn't make for a strong argument. That's exactly like saying "as long as you aren't aware of pain or negative consequences, it doesn't effect you." It's another life that is being taken, and though it hasn't had a chance to see the world yet, it still is living though they are dependent on someone else. If you hinge the ability to determine the legal abortion limit based on pain, the same rules could apply for people killing fully newborns, even children, because they aren't fully developed, and as long as they don't feel pain when they are killed, it will be alright. And I have yet to find a reasonable excuse for an abortion. In this case, many people bring up the issue of rape, incest, or carrying out the procedure for the sake of the mother's life. Reality is, that less than 1% of all abortions are enacted because of these reasons, the 99%+ is simply for the sake of convenience, or desire. And in these cases, I cannot in any way find any justifiable cause to end the developing life of a child. It sounds like value and what that includes determines the weight on the scales of a mother's desires, vs. the life of the fetus for you. Sources: abortionfacts.com http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
The abortion limit should be set at 20 weeks

Here is my argument. Right, so a fetus at the moment of conception, we agree, is probably not worthy of having the same value as an adult human. I expect we also agree that a newborn baby has the same value as an adult human. So the question is, where is the line? The line should be based on when the fetus goes from not having the same value as an adult human to having the same value. It is irrelevant the time needed to make the choice to abort, however hard the decision may be. If pregnancy lasted only 20 weeks (potentially not enough time to make the decision) then would it be right to kill the newborn? I expect you would agree that this would be immoral. Therefore, the line cannot be drawn on how long it takes to make this extremely hard decision. I could argue that 20 weeks is enough time to make a decision but I believe this is unnecessary unless you can prove otherwise. It seems that the best place to draw the line is when the fetus goes from not having the same value as an adult human to having it. Why is it immoral to kill the adult human and not the newly conceived fetus? I believe it is wrong to kill an adult human because they are a being with interests. They can feel pleasure and pain. They have it in their interests to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. We don't kill another adult human because we know killing him will effect his interests. We appreciate that killing him will mean he will be deprived of all future pleasure, whilst also causing him pain. Fetuses (at a certain level of development) can feel pain however. I believe this capability means that they have equal value to an adult human. One pro-abortion report from a strongly left wing newspaper reported on a scientific experiment into fetal pain and held that fetuses feel no pain before 24 weeks. [1] This automatically suggests that 28 weeks is the wrong place to draw the limit (the limit in some countries). Now this is one of several experiments and some conclude that fetal pain can start as early as 20 weeks. Obviously this depends on the development of the baby, so its right to go with the lowest common denominator so as not to risk killing any human life of value. With this significant scientific disagreement I believe that until more substantial proof supports the 24 week limit we should (to be safe) make the limit at 20 weeks. Imagine if, in the future, the proof supports the view that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. Would it not be equivalent to a genocide to have killed all those lives which are as valuable as any adult human? Surely, to be safe we should go with the marginally smaller limit of 20 weeks. At least until we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that fetuses feel pain, we should set the abortion limit at 20 weeks. Just as it is wrong to have capital punishment whilst there is not conclusive evidence that it acts as a deterrent. Furthermore, even if we never had this proof then I believe it would not be catastrophic to keep the 20 week limit.
Smoking cigarettes should be illegal in public places

Hello, good luck to the opponent and hope this debate can be of benefit to us both.Definitions: Smoking - a visible suspension of carbon or other particles in air, typically one emitted from a burning substance. Cigarettes - a thin cylinder of finely cut tobacco rolled in paper for smoking.Illegal - contrary to or forbidden by law.Public - of or concerning to the people as a whole.Stance: Pro - I will choose pro, meaning I believe it should be illegal to smoke in public places. To be more specific I believe there should be private places where smoker's can smoke amongst themselves. Con - Obviously will be chosen by my opponent he/she will protect the rights that smoker's have now which is to be able to smoke anywhere. (With some exception of private places where is not permitted, such as restaurants, movie theater's etc.) First round will be for acceptance, then we will move on from there.If my opponent should have any questions I ask him/her to leave a comment or send me a private message.Side note, I will like someone responsible someone who will start and finish a debate a ton of people start but never end it and It's quite irresponsible and annoying.Thank you and good luck.
Smoking cigarettes should be illegal in public places

I wholeheartedly reject the notion that BOP should be shifted to the person maintaining the status quo. If anything, BOP should be equally responsible, especially since no BOP guide was established in round 1. Typically, even when BOP is equal, the instigator goes first, since it would be highly unfair for me to have both the first word and the last word. However, since we are running low on rounds, I will begin with my argument. Smoking should remain legal in some public places, namely in designated areas in open parks and wildernesses. In open areas, the is more wind and light, and so, smoke disperses much quicker [1]. By quickly dispersing, there is less risk of damage from passive smoke. By also having designated smoking areas, the risk of accidental passive smoke damage further drops. This limits any damage caused by smoking to be experienced by the smoker alone, so they can take personal responsibility for their own actions. Under the basic rights of self-ownership, individuals have the right to do what they want to themselves, so long as they don't cause harm to others. If smoking in public can be limited so that only the smoker suffers the damage of their choices, then the right to smoke should not be infringed. I'll leave this at that for now and await my opponent's argument. Thank you, [1] https://fp.auburn.edu...
Smoking cigarettes should be illegal in public places

To make it all clear, of the positions the opponent and I carry. Pro - I am pro for this debate therefore I have the burden of proving that "Smoking should be illegal in public places. " Such as the streets, parks, etc. Con - The opponent will have the burden of proving that "Smoking should be legal in public places. " Such as the streets, parks, etc. Under his/her definitions and these positions we both accept the debate and I will let the opponent make his opening statement. Thank you and good luck.
Smoking cigarettes should be illegal in public places

I wish to offer alternative definitions, but I will leave it to my opponent to make the final decision of to use his definitions or mine (and I will respect whatever set he chooses so long as he announces it at the start of round 2). Smoking - the action of intentionally inhaling the fumes of a burning substance, typically done through the burning of tobacco in the form of a cigarette (though not limited to that). public place - any location which is owned by the government and so, the people. Not privately owned. As for "cigarette" I accept that definition (though suggest that it be expanded to include all smoking tobacco products, like cigars).
should there be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly work hours

Point recognized, but, if you don't have stress from all the work, you will be less pressured to work under the table. As you said, the government won't be furious because they can just place larger fines on working under the table. Think about it, would you rather stay safe and with less stress and more sleep or work under the table for a bit more money and risk having to pay more than you've earned and going into deep debt.
should there be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly work hours

I agree that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. Having a cap on weekly working hours could potentially reduce stress, create more family time, add more jobs, eliminate a few abusive cases and less chances of error. If a single person is working 80 hours a week, it could be keeping another person from a job. Instead of that single person working 80 hours, it could be two working 40 hours each. A cap on work hours could reduce error by giving people more hours of sleep. The more hours your working, the less sleep you get and the greater chance of error. It could potentially eliminate a few abusive cases because when people are stressed by the lack of sleep they can get frustrated and angry, which could cause them to lash out. Although I do think there should be a ceiling on most jobs, it shouldn't apply to community jobs like doctors, truck drivers and police officers. I think that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours because it would improve us as a society by creating overall healthier people.
should there be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly work hours

I do not think there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly work hours because many people need to work extra hours to support their families and without the extra hours some might start to illegally work under the table which will cause much conflict and disruption. This will also result in many people losing their homes and going deep into debt. Some people really need the extra hours for a job like being a surgeon. If you were to be a surgeon and you were only aloud to work 40 hours a week there would be many people in distress because they have to wait so long for a properly qualified surgeon to operate.
Politicians should have their every political action made public and openly scrutinised.

Ultimately, no matter what kind of political spectrum we have in place, no matter what kind of political heritage we're moving into, it's becoming harder and harder for a politician to justify his or her wages because some information is already freely available. Time was nobody knew what politicians did save for investigative journalists. People have the choice now of being better informed about their leaders if they so wish to be and I think that's a truly terrifying concept to specific political figures and parties. What we have to do, at the very least, is show these people that we are paying attention. We are becoming more and more aware of their activities every day, we are capable of putting the pieces together and we are ultimately responsible for their continued presence in whatever seat of power or unpower they have. To tell them to fear us would likely have them start seriously considering some softcore fascistic legislations for self defense, even if it doesn't do that, that isn't a chance I want to take. To give them a reason to be cautious about us, that I think would benefit everyone, them included.
Politicians should have their every political action made public and openly scrutinised.

For every paid newspaper that supports one party there is another that supports the other, and therefore acts as a counterweight. Besides, who said anything about American newspapers and tv stations specifically? My idea applies on a global scale, to think in terms of a single country is as vain as it is petty. We are already told of the atrocities of leaders like Kim Jong Il and we are offered on a platter the legislative fallacies perpetrated by Iran and Russia and China. My idea is an expansion on that, it will be held neither by national nor political boundaries in an ideal world. Besides, you're arguing with it's implementation more than with it's purpose. You seem keen to say that it would not work because it's new and relatively untested, thus ignoring my point that it would be politically suicidal to insinuate that the Government, any Government, should have unending rights to privacy and secrecy when it demands that it's people, or any people, do not share that same right. It's implementation, like any good legislation, would have it's bumps. I would imagine that a man whose independence was implanted through the bumpiest means possible would understand that smooth implementation does not equate to good implementation. You said yourself that these people care only about money and power. You imply that these people do not care for the common people and I agree. For that sake at the very least we should ensure that they have a reason, if not to care for us, then at least be aware that we are watching. We are clearly willing to give them the power and money they crave. All I'm saying is, lets make them earn it on our terms rather than on theirs.
Politicians should have their every political action made public and openly scrutinised.

First I must say that the whole political system is messed up. However it is the government we have, and it is better than the other 99% of governments in the world. Politicians are concerned with two things, and two things only. Making money, and being re-elected. Being re-elected is only a means to get more money. Very few people work in law for the well-being of others. Those people who do not are Judges, for the most part. The first election's of the United States of america involved "un-reluctant" people who only accepted their role in government because the people wanted them to. This is definitely not the case now. Now politicians spend millions, if not billions of dollars to be elected. They make no show of not wanting to become Congressmen, or Presidents. The only people who are "un-reluctant" are Supreme Court Justices. The corrupt officials will do anything to make money, and that includes paying off newspapers. Which I'm sure happens. Even if the newspaper's report it, and the people read it. What can the people, and newspaper's do?
Politicians should have their every political action made public and openly scrutinised.

Politically independent organisations are not a nonexistent entity. If nothing else I would argue that journalists and some newsreaders already do the job of the proposed organisation for no extra cost. If the parties can all agree that such a system is required for the political safekeeping of the nation (and lets be honest, it would reek of political corruption to state that the people should not see what politicians do) then we can agree to let the politicians themselves fund it. Add a tab to the yearly budget or something. If nothing else, modern day politics has shown that politicians are as eager to get dirt on their opponents as we are. They might even walk into it pf their own accord.
Politicians should have their every political action made public and openly scrutinised.

It's a simple enough equation that political corruption, if unpunished, will only breed more of the same. If we allow politicians, who I remind you work for the tax payer, not vice versa, to carry on without having to justify their actions and make known their incentives then bad law and worthless or counterproductive legislation will become more commonplace. If we make sure that politicians know, right from day one, that we won't stand for any messing about from them and that if they do mess about then we will notice then they will be forced to do one of two things, either cease any actions they may be taking that they know will be counterproductive or tone it down so much that it will become worthless. If the Government insists on keeping tabs on it's people then the people should have tabs kept on the Government.