BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

Thank you to DanT for his well thought out arguments in Round 2.2nd AmendmentWell argued. However, no court case I"ve ever heard of has said that the 2nd Amendment takes away *all* police powers of the Federal Government with respect to personal possession of "arms." [You, of course, only need 1 Supreme Court case to counter this statement.]So if this is an argument from authority, the highest judges of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment have clearly stated that it does not take away *all* ability of the federal government* to regulate arms to *some* degree.It is hard for me to imagine a Supreme Court judges would say the federal government has no ability to outlaw private possession of bazookas, rocket launchers, bombs, ...Again, though I agree that our founding parents were sane and wise, this argument doesn't help to prove that *NO* regulation of private weapons ownership is sane or wise.TO BE VERY CLEAR, I SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT. This debate is not about whether there is a right to bear the arms permitted by the Constitution. It is about whether *some* regulation of that right, just as there is *some* regulation of other rights (including speech), is wise.Practicality1. Eight Amendment [from Wiki--(I had to look it up. I only know the numbers of a few of the Amedments.)]: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."I"ll need some more explanation to see how limiting ownership of bazookas**, is cruel and unusual punishment.**2. The economic case:It seems to me wiser and saner that some things are expensive and difficult to obtain. This seems so obvious as to not need explanation. However, don"t we WANT rocket bazookas** to only be available on the black market at an exorbitant price? There are certain items, WMD seem to be a good example, that the sane, wise position would be NOT to be available to ANYONE. And if they are available to anyone, one would hope that only a democratically elected government, and that such a government would do its best to prevent their possession and use by crazy or evil persons.AlternativesNon sequitur.How you would prefer to die has little relevance for whether or not it is saner and wiser to allow *ANY* and *ALL* weapon ownership by private citizens.Seems to me the obviously saner and wiser position is to do everything within reason to prevent the loss of innocent lives. Not to be too demagogic, but don't you think the victims of mass murder by rapid fire would prefer not to die at all? To extend that point, imagine if Mr. Lanza had access to even more powerful weapons than he did. Would the sane and wise person prefer that his mother could have purchased machine guns or bazookas**?SummationI have rebutted my esteemed colleagues arguments. Though they are well argued and researched, I am still at a loss for someone arguing Con on this Resolution. Therefore, I will offer no new arguments myself, other than those made in this rebuttal.* (nor the states or other jurisdictions.)** rocket launchers, bombs, ...
Animal testing should be ban in the us

Are you saying that 'The End always justifies the means'Are you saying that if the U.S. did impose a ban that it would be left at an unfair global disadvantage? Is that your argument. We are going to have to get to the nub of this question soon, with only 3 rounds.My position is that there should never be testing on animals, even if it is within the context of animal health or conservation. I disagree with the domestication of animals for farming or labour.I believe that animals should not be kept in Zoo's or as pets. I believe that a creature has a 'validity' and an essence that should not be violated.This is an absolute position that will never be practical in any real way. I just choose to have it, anyway.I believe that the fate of all mammalian life on this planet is already a done deal and that debate on this is 'just shooting the breeze'If you are going to kill it for fun, then kill it. Just leave your gun at the Police Station and start with a lion.If you are going to kill it to eat it, then do that. Allow the creature to live it's life as intended and kill it as effectively and as humanely as is possible. If the creature is a nuisance requiring a cull then use the same approach. Donate space to these creatures for their lifetimes. IMHOWe press home our advantage on fellow life forms and we have created a 'final solution' for these things. Cosmetics or morality? It is your call.If you want to do testing, then get sick people to try the stuff out. Find volunteers etc. Isn't it a fact that the global pharmacutical industry is just one big 'death camp' of torture and sadism. We don't see it but it is there. Do you consider that the suffering of mammals is subjectively different than the pain we experience as human mammals?. Why? Would you administer a toxin to a child. Would you use rat poison? Why?Would you use weed-killer? Why? Where are you going to make your line here?Human morality is a Menu if it ignores creatures like dogs, chimpanzees, rabbits, rats, etc. These creatures are mammals as we are. They nurture and love and protect as we do. So do many of our endangered species. If we cannot discover a morality that encompasses the validity of these life forms then we will finish them off first and finally turn on ourselves. Negroes were conveniently regarded as animals for most of the slave trade. This justified their exclusion from any degrees of decent treatment. What if a chimpanzee or a gorilla was able to express itself via a computer language programme, What if it could recite it's own prayer or poem. Would we still stick 'bolts' in his head.?This consideration is an absolute that will never be 'seriously considered' Make your point, but do not expect me to agree with it. Good Luck
Singularity is a bad idea

The Singularity. Some describe it as the merge of man and machine, others as when machine surpasses man. The definition that would fit best is the point when machine becomes as smart or smarter than man. This would most likely first occur with the merge of the two. Some claim this advancement in technology will be a victory of out generation; others point to the Terminator franchise or any of the swaths of sci-fi horrors. But I am here to defend the union between natural and artificial. It will be a leap in our society. I look forward to debating this topic, and will see you then.
Singularity is a bad idea

Singularity has been thought to be something that we are all waiting for; something that could help our economy,prevent us from fighting wars, improve our health and introduce forms of immortality. But is it too good to be true or of any benefit to the people? This debate will ONLY cover the combining of machine and conscience. It sounds more interesting to me in my opinion. Will combining the human condition with a robotic "conscience" be beneficial?
I can make a better alternate history my opponent

Hitler was a wolf - Continuing! Now, there is a myth going on that Hitler was a vegetarian. This myth, however, presents few facts, but the question is, why is this myth even alive? Why would such a myth be existent when we all know that Hitler was a brutal murderer? This was due to his hidden nature. If you analyze the nature of wolves, you will find truth in that they try to appear as vegetarians, or in other words, peaceful creatures. However, there is no doubt that the truth about them gets revealed not long after they unleash their rage. A similar fashion can be attributed to Hitler, because he did eat meat, but as much as he made nearly all his actions apparent to everyone, this one - among some secret others - was not as apparent. Compare this to how wolves try to hide the fact that they are not vegetarians. Moving on, if you look at mythology, the gray wolf has had a very high status, particularly in Japanese mythoogy (and the Japanese had great ties to Hitler). http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, unless my opponent returns, I will establish the final evidence for the fact that Hitler - was a wolf.
I can make a better alternate history my opponent

I challenge my opponent to create an alternate or counterfactual history that is better and more realistic than mine. I expect the vote to be an even balance of the two but any alien space bats or any extremely implausible happenings will disqualify a debate. You cant claim that Napoleon was in possession of a UFO but must rather have a logically point of deviation and a history in whatever form they wish. Round one will consist of the standard meet and greet while the second consists of the actual history (you may appeal for more time in round 3. ) round 3/4 to 5 consists of us finding holes, making corrections or overall criticism. I urge my opponent to go along with me by sending a link to the factual account of what happened or a description for the audience viewing at home. Voters should disregard the who I agreed with before the debate button.
Popular kids who are bullies aren't cool

Bullies are who they want to be. Either kind or mean. We though still respect them as people who also have feelings. Then the view of the person can also think someone is cool or not, Like a lot of people think Berne Sanders was cool, But a lot of people didn't. Then time also depends on the matter. A present bully may not be cool, But in the future he/she turns nice they may be cool then. Sorry about the bully you had to face. Thank you for the debate, This was fun. ;)
Popular kids who are bullies aren't cool

Yea forget my first argument too I was bored and angry. I know a bully who was the cause of a lot of problems I had in school, But she was just hurt. She was the result of a one night stand between two strangers who tried to make it work but couldn"t and split a few years later, Followed by a horrible stepdad. She was horrible to me. I had anxiety and was bisexual but I"ve never gone too long without forgiving people. Unfortunately I don"t usually get apologies but this one girl who made my life hell did. That being said, I have never trusted anyone else apart from one person who is completely tearing me apart. I have some trust issues so I guess it"s not really her fault. I was only 10 when she started bullying me, So I probably over exaggerate some of it. I think your right.
Popular kids who are bullies aren't cool

Forget my first argument. Bullies deserve a chance of redemption, And I understand it can be hard to accept since i'm sure we have all been bullied before. Believe it or not, But most bullies have been hurt and feel like they have to place it out on someone else. I believe any bully has a chance to be cool; popular or not. Bullies are triggers of a chain reaction as well as the fuel. They get bullied (the spark), And then they take it out on someone else (the fuel). I'm willing to respect all people. Bully or not! Popular or unpopular! People are people, And people deserve a chance to be cool! You still say though, "They are horrible people who need to be taught a lesson. " Is this a suggestion of revenge? Revenge is also a chain reaction that comes back at you! I say, "They are hurt people who need to find a redemption. " I was hurt many times by bullies. One day a kid on my street with a couple of his brain washed thugs surrounded me. Their "leader" came into the center with me. The thugs started chanting. The kid in the center with me was the most popular kid in my grade. He was a bully to me every day. Now considering the fact that I am a foot taller than him, I could have killed him if I needed to. Not that I would have, But I felt bad for him. I turned and broke the circle. I walked home. They didn't laugh thinking I backed down, Since it was clear that I could have crushed him. Then a few days later he moved. I still hope he gets a redemption. See every bully likes a reaction. Maybe if we don't react when it's minor we might be able to extinguish their fuel. Each person has a spirit of love, Joy, Peace, Patents, Kindness, And self control. We can exercise each of these traits. A bully mostly needs to exercise kindness. So how do we get them to exercise kindness? To start we tell them what the did wrong, And if they accept their wrong doing you win, And the bully knows his wrong. If not then you should forgive them. Then they will now that you think they did something wrong. Every bully needs to find a redemption to be cool. Bullies can be cool. If we help them more can too.
Popular kids who are bullies aren't cool

Dirt, Dirt dirt dirt! I'm totally for you on this one! I don't like bullies! Bullies smell like dirt! One once shoved a highlighter up my behind. . . And. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I didn't try to kill him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ouch, I didn't mean to accept dis debate. LETS FACE IT! WHO LIKES BULLIES! A rebellion must begin! No more bullies! Time being, I'm against being against you. VOTERS FOR ME ME ME! Glglglgl. . . I so lost this ;-;
Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

Hello all, I am arguing against the proposition that is poorly worded (I apologize) "Hate Speech Laws are a good idea", which is about as simple as it gets. The first round will be for acceptance, and no new arguments on the last round. Otherwise no rules, except that Hate Speech Laws = "Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification." Note that I use the American definition but extend that to Hate Speech in my home country of Canada and any other nation in the world in which this is an issue. And one more thing... "I may not approve of what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
America Should Be the Only Nation

Sigh. Thank you for not switching positions. "Next, if the US went all AWOL on everybody and shot missels at them, how would they get back? "Use nuklear missles?" GUESS WHO HAS ALL OF THE MISSLES? (HINT: RUSSIAN MISSLES ARE OWNED BY COCA-COLA. WIKIPEDIA IT.)" Russian missiles are not owned by Coca-Cola. "Next, I was trying to say that we have too many nations to remember (as I said, *over 15*). How to fix that?!? World Map = American Map." That would not solve the problem of having to remember the names of regions. In any case, remembering the names of countries is not difficult for those who are not devastatingly stupid. "Finally, look at all the money that's leaving the US. If there were no other nations, money *couldn't* leave the US. All of that money would be staying here. Let's say we export all our money each year. That means that, if the US controlled everything, Americans could buy like INFINITY% MORE." That is not how economics works. Conclusion: My opponent has not adequately addressed the fact that taking over the world is not a reasonable option for the United States. The purported benefits he has mentioned do not make sense to anyone with a frontal lobe. I also submit that my opponent is so irrationally stupid that he is perhaps faking his stupidity (such as by claiming to be in school, 37, and Noam Chomsky on various occasions) and thus should lose the conduct point.
America Should Be the Only Nation

Okay MR SMART PATNS: First off, you know Lincoln-Douglass? Guess how Lincoln won that stuff? HE SWITCHED POSITIONS EVERY SENTENCE. Wikipedia it. anyway, I'm not going to switch positions (WHICH MEANS I JUST DID SWITCH I WIWN WIN WIN I WIN! TIME PARADOX) Next, if the US went all AWOL on everybody and shot missels at them, how would they get back? "Use nuklear missles?" GUESS WHO HAS ALL OF THE MISSLES? (HINT: RUSSIAN MISSLES ARE OWNED BY COCA-COLA. WIKIPEDIA IT.) Next, I was trying to say that we have too many nations to remember (as I said, *over 15*). How to fix that?!? World Map = American Map. Finally, look at all the money that's leaving the US. If there were no other nations, money *couldn't* leave the US. All of that money would be staying here. Let's say we export all our money each year. That means that, if the US controlled everything, Americans could buy like INFINITY% MORE.
America Should Be the Only Nation

I will start this debate by noting that the burden of proof is on my opponent to show why America should be the only nation. I do not necessarily have to say why it should not as long as all of his justifications are disproven. This argument is not cohesive at all and I'm lazy so I'm just going to break it into chunks and address each part. "How many nations have you had to learn about? Ten? Fifteen? FIFTEEN!?!?! I know about that, since I have a map/math quiz tomorrow (example: Madrid * Paris = Minsk?!?)" This has nothing to do with anything. "Anywho, I've been studying and I think that the US should embark on a campaign to assimilate/kill everyone who is not American. (Like Just Cause 2). We should send soldiers *everywhere* and have them make America #1 ($$$$$$$$$ -- we'll be rich!) Maybe we'll want to get rid of Oregon as well -- not American enough for me." The only argument given here is that it would make America rich. I strongly disagree. The costs of such a campaign, which would be unmanageable to begin with, would far outweigh the potential profit. "Anyway, I think the only downside is that we won't be able to have Carr's crackers anymore, but the Traitor Joe's crackers are pretty good. Also: American FLAGS EVERYWHERE. EVEN HUNG **ON PEOPLE.**" I have no idea what this is about and I don't care. "P.S: I will switch positions every round, so I will always win. :-)" No, you can't do that because you would just be arguing against your original case. You'll just alternate between losing and doubly losing. Counter Argument: If the United States embarked on a campaign of global dominance, other nations would use nuclear weapons against the United States. There is no way that such an attempt could end in success.
America Should Be the Only Nation

How many nations have you had to learn about? Ten? Fifteen? FIFTEEN!?!?! I know about that, since I have a map/math quiz tomorrow (example: Madrid * Paris = Minsk?!?) Anywho, I've been studying and I think that the US should embark on a campaign to assimilate/kill everyone who is not American. (Like Just Cause 2). We should send soldiers *everywhere* and have them make America #1 ($$$$$$$$$ -- we'll be rich!) Maybe we'll want to get rid of Oregon as well -- not American enough for me. Anyway, I think the only downside is that we won't be able to have Carr's crackers anymore, but the Traitor Joe's crackers are pretty good. Also: American FLAGS EVERYWHERE. EVEN HUNG **ON PEOPLE.** P.S: I will switch positions every round, so I will always win. :-)
School is the most boring thing ever

Schools give students more than just an education of 1+1. Students can learn to have a wider perception of things. School also can keep kids from getting bored and into things they shouldn"t be into like drugs. Students can tryout for sport teams and/or other school groups and learn what it"s like to work along with other people. And the education they get from school helps them get jobs or to go to a further education to get an even better career. Plus kids that come from poor families now have a chance to make a future for them self. Also they learn to handle the pressure of commitment and deadlines along with social skills. Students learn to socialize with many different age groups and many different people they probably wouldn"t have met if it weren"t for them going to school. They learn how to handle working with people they don"t like and socializing with people they do like to create friendships or relationships with them. Also if there are special needs people in their school they can learn how to accept and handle meeting someone that is handicap or different from them.
Liberalism is better than Conservatism

: " A political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical"liberalism"while the latter is more evident in social liberalism. " Conservativism: " Conservatism"(or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change. " Pro will argue why Liberalism (both political and social liberal thought) is beneficial and advantageous to society. Con will argue the opposite.
That allowing terminally ill patients to die when and how they choose is justified

Yes, I am using euthanasia in specific reference to terminally ill patients - they are the primary subject of discussion in these debates anyway."the right to self preservation does not mean an obligation towards it; However, when people deliberately choose to give up this right they are also choosing to say the hell with the value of life (sanctity of life ) which is the foundation of all other values and should be held at value above all others because without life all tings that we value would be non-existent."Two problems: first, simply because people are willing to give up their life does not mean they are necessarily disregarding the value of life entirely (as you put it, saying to 'hell with the value of life'). People can be well-aware of the value of life, but end it in the face of a greater value (namely avoiding unbearable suffering). You could make an argument that commiting suicide in one way or another degrades the value of life to an extent (perhaps even entirely), but you would need to make a case as to why this would be. Secondly, and more importantly, you haven't even yet shown why the value of life is a 'higher-order' value than the values of personal liberty, avoiding suffering, etc. As I've stated in my previous round, simply because life is a biological necessity to having other values doesn't mean it's necessarily granted a higher metaphysical status. "I'm not certain what my opponent meant but I agree with him that the concept of personal liberty does not preclude people foolish damaging their own body."I'm confused, are you thus agreeing with me? "finally my opponent makes an argument of rationality and irrationality how if people want to kill themselves they should be able to no matter their state of mind and how we can reach deliberation irrespective of their condition"Absolutely incorrect, I advise you read my round again. I argued that while the issue of whether we can take a terminally ill patient's judgement as valid (given many are compromised to a certain extent due to their circumstances), this is a practical issue when legislating laws surrounding euthanasia. In other words, these are difficult, practical hurdles for practicing euthanasia but it isn't an inherent, ethical flaw with the concept itself.