BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should not ban guns.

I do agree that if guns aren't banned completely, then way stricter rules. I also agree that people can get them illegally anyway. Though, they can be used for self-protection, they are also used for harm. I have had 4 family members shoot themselves because they were feeling depressed, and the gun was there. I know it's like that for a lot of other people and their family members, too. Having guns (in my opinion) makes people feel a false sense of power, and things could go wrong fast. I am not completely con, nor am I pro. At first I thought this was a joke post, but then you gave actual reason. I do understand and respect your points, they were very much valid. We are in a world of tough times (emotionally) and if guns are provided, there's no telling what a depressed or angry person might do in the moment. I do believe people should take courses and safety lessons before even being able to buy or apply for a gun / gun licence. It would be much safer.
Airsoft is better than paintball

The burden of proof is on my opponent, since I am con. Since my opponent has forfeited the round, I will state my arguments per round, so I will start with Point 1. Paintball, being the game it is, doesn't allow for cheating. There is an obvious paint marker where you are hit, making the very common "No, It never hit me!" argument invalid. Airsoft has no way of telling who was hit without the use of special technology, which is not part of the debate.
Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia Can Be Justified

"doing so proved that racism, sexism, and homophobia are still problems!" first of all, I was not saying it's sexist by doing so, I was simply saying it was more politically correct to use both sex's regardless the fact that we all understand what he meant. on the contrary, many people believe that the DOI should say that all men "and women" are created equal, but I do not believe so, because "that all men are created equal" implies women within it wo"men". "The existence of racism, sexism, and homophobia is beyond obvious." despite the existance of such things (and I never said they didn't exist) there is still the point of the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to justify something that does not need justification. sexism is feeling that one sex is greater than another sex. there is no problem in believing that. just because you are sexist does not mean that you will act upon it, nor is this debate about acting upon these diagnosis's. racism is believing a superiority over another race. there is never a problem with feeling racist. Ironically, you're asian, and I believe that asians are superior to whites, but I'm not going to worship you just because I believe that you are naturally inclined and gifted to be better at everything. homophobia is the fear of homosexuals/gay people there is nothing wrong with fearing gay people. it makes sense. you're afraid that they are going to hit on you, and it's a possibility, but it doesn't mean that you're going to attack them because you're afraid of them hitting on you. YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY WHAT IS ALREADY OKAY! Justify - to declare innocent or guiltless read the definition. it supports my case. if you don't believe that a definition, look it up yourself.. http://dictionary.reference.com... thankyou! X
Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia Can Be Justified

I seem to have upset my opponent in defaulting to the masculine pronoun "he". I apologize. I was merely obeying traditional grammar rules. I can totally understand where my opponent is coming from. But something rather ironic about the fact that my opponent was upset by my usage of masculine pronouns, is that doing so proved that racism, sexism, and homophobia are still problems! To reiterate: In being offended by my sexism, my opponent contradicted his statement that sexism is no longer a problem. But I don't need to use a semantical argument to prove my point. Just do a quick Google News search (http://news.google.com...), and you will find that discrimination is hugely abundant! The existence of racism, sexism, and homophobia is beyond obvious. My opponent's argument -- that because racism, sexism, and homophobia don't exist, they don't need to be justified -- starts with an invalid premise, and therefore leads to an invalid conclusion. Because that was my opponent's only argument, my opponent's entire case becomes void. Now, on to further proving the resolution! The word "can" implies a hypothetical scenario. This fact is exemplified in a common question that is familiar to all of us: "Can I have a piece of paper?". We all know the common satirical response: "You could. Yes, you have the ability to possess paper." As can be seen, the word "can", in its most rudimentary form, is able to be applied to hypothetical situations. Therefore, if I can come up with one scenario in which racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified (even if imagined), I win this debate. I have provided three hypothetical scenarios in which racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified. In the same way I was once afraid of bowling balls because one hit me on the head, another child can grow a similar fear of feminists if a feminist fell on them. In the same way a person may mimic their savior in a traumatic situation, a young girl may mimic the KKK if they saved her from being raped by -- to satisfy my opponent -- a bunch of black guys. In the same way children detest people similar to their abusive parents, a child may detest gay people if her or his abusive parents happened to be gay. No matter how absurd my hypothetical situations may be, they must be allowed because of the resolution. Under these bizarre occurences, of course racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified. It doesn't make it right, but it can be justified. I rest my case.
Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia Can Be Justified

first of all, my statement is that homophobia is the fear of gay people. and it cannot be justified to be AFRAID of gay people. at the same note, it is not wrong to be afraid of gay people, so it doesn't need to be justified in the first place. due to affirmative action, racism is no longer a problem, so it also does not need justification because it is not affecting anybody. and sexism has no problem either, because there are no current examples where sexism is a problem in society. neg is the correct way to vote because all of the said topics do not need justification, so they cannot be justified. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "And that is the story of the discriminator. He is misunderstood by society, and misjudged" he? it could be a girl also. "What if the KKK saved a young girl from being raped by a bunch of Mexicans? " what does that even have to do with anything? KKK killed black people. and they believed they were the superior race. mexicans? rape? irrelivant
Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia Can Be Justified

We've all heard the sob stories. Hell, they are probably occurring as we speak! Somewhere, a homosexual cuddles in a crowded locker as he is beaten and called derogatory terms such as "f*g", "f*got", and "c*cksucker". Someplace, a construction worker snickers at a beautiful blond walking down an adjacent street. Somewhere, an African American's job application is torn for no other reason than his being black. But there is an untold story. And that is the story of the discriminator. He is misunderstood by society, and misjudged. Who are we to assume the personality of discriminators before getting to know them each individually? Perhaps they have a kind heart. Perhaps they work at soup kitchens on the weekends. How do we know? What if a feminist fell on them as a child? What if the KKK saved a young girl from being raped by a bunch of Mexicans? What if a child had two abusive, gay parents? I think it is wrong to prematurely assign personality traits to discriminators. We must get to know these people first before judging them. Therefore, I strongly support the notion that "Racism, sexism, and homophobia can be justified". I leave the floor open to my opponent.
President Obama would destroy Bush in an election

I don't have trouble, but I am pretty sure you do. One point i have to make like I made before Obama made a point and promised America a lot of things and I have the list to prove it. Here is the first 100 days of Barrack obama in office, because i know you are to familiar with them. A now he is doing a 4 nation tour around Asia. For someone that has kept every promise in the book if Bush was to run again yeah he would not win. http://www.time.com... oh and here is bush time line as well http://www.cnn.com... All this i just looking at what is going on today and if they were to face off in the future. Which that won't happen, but yeah looking at what Bush did and now what Obama is doing. Obama has it all in the bag. Now i am done!!!!
President Obama would destroy Bush in an election

First of all, it's perfectly obvious that you think the English language is hard to understand, and you don't need to tell us that you have trouble speaking it. If you were looking for a debate about the winner of an Obama-Bush election, you shouldn't have made your premise: "President Obama would destroy Bush in an election". You're right: we're not "[debating] on violence," but we're also not debating about bush winning or losing an election. This debate is about whether or not Obama would destroy Bush in an election. As I have given points on why Obama would not destroy bush in an election and you have not disputed them or given any evidence to the contrary, I clearly am debating at a higher level than you. I suggest that next time you instigate a debate you know what you want to debate about.
President Obama would destroy Bush in an election

See this is the problem I am not talking about violence at all. This is the problem. Two in some of our native tongue that is why English is a hard language you will not understand. Three I am getting back to the debate in our last round you said nothing about bush wining either and that is what i am looking for. We are not on violence we are on winning an election. One man that has done what he said he was going to do vs. another man that lied and just ran this Country into more debt and not just that put us in another country that does not want our help. This debate is not about violence nor killing only wining and the thing is all people that speak English do not speak the same or as we say one word can mean several different meanings for us. right now I don't have a debater.
President Obama would destroy Bush in an election

Your points do not support your premise, which is that "President Obama would destroy Bush in an election." All I have to do to win this debate is to prove that President Obama would not destroy Bush in an election. Seeing as how you did not dispute my points in the first round, you concede that Bush would not be destroyed in said election. Furthermore, Obama hasn't shown any violent tendencies, and Bush would be very well protected from any attempts of destruction, even if they were by Barack Obama. The fact that "Bush did nothing," which is untrue and unsupported, has nothing to do with this debate. Likewise, their speaking abilities, Obama being "better at everything" (which is also unsupported in your argument), and the War in Iraq are completely irrelevant as you stated them in your argument. As I said before, Bush would not be destroyed in either definition of the word: fragmented or "completely" defeated.
President Obama would destroy Bush in an election

First of all like i said Bush did nothing. Second when you are looking at an election you have to look at everything that comes into play. One is strength which in their case the strength of their speaking abilities. Obama is a better speaker and he gets his words out in flowing sentences as for bush his speaking is not strong, but weak and you don't need proof if you listen to bush talk to know that. Three Obama is just better at everything other than Bush like I said before he lied to get that chair for one, because when the towers were hit he wanted war instead of thinking about the consequences. We are killing more than soldiers in Iraq and that was not our fight. He was quick to call them terrorist without looking at the big picture of what every single Muslim would go through That live here in the USA. Now they are all being called terrorist an some of them are right here in our US military. Good luck
President Obama would destroy Bush in an election

I'll start by defining "destroy" because my opponent failed to do so. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) The first 4 definitions can be ruled out by common sense; no matter the outcome of the election, Bush would be around afterwards and not "reduce[d] to useless fragments..." :) Bush being "destroyed" as per definition 5 can also be disregarded because Bush would not be defeated "completely," or entirely (http://dictionary.reference.com...); for this to happen, Obama would be required to win by 100%, which is improbable. Now I will address your points: 1. You need to provide evidence to support your contention. 2. A. For the sake of my argument, I will refrain from disputing that "Bush did not do nothing his first 100 days in office". B. Again, you've provided nothing but opinion; some facts/data to back up your contention would be appreciated! 3. These are mere opinions and therefore are irrelevant to the debate. Thanks for this debate.
President Obama would destroy Bush in an election

Well lets see if Obama and Bush were to go against each other in a presidential debate Obama would win and here is why. First of all Bush lied through his teeth when he ran the last time, talking about he was going to fix everything as for Obama is doing what he said he was going to do and then some. Two Bush did not do nothing his first 100 days in office as for Obama he traveled around and met many other presidents and actually sat down and talked with them. Obama was not the only one his wife the first lady has done many wonderful things as well. Third Bush never made a good president at all he just made everything worse. I respect him though, but obama makes a great President and he is doing very well.
people with learning difficulties general public rudeness

Thank you, greaves, for creating this argument. Now, I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say here... but, ah, I'm going to assuming you are saying people who have disabilities do NOT generate the "meanness" of the public. Since you are on the con side, and I can't understand the title, I'll go with that. Hopefully I'm right! When you say "rudeness", you are implying people are cruel to people with disabilities. This is not so. Although there are people who treat ones with disabilities differently, the general public doesn't spit on quadriplegics' shoes. NOw, there are outliers -- people who are incredibly mean. You seem to be focusing on these few outliers and thus deduce everyone is like these people. There are multiple societies founded through private charities to protect thee people and give them rights. If you say that this is rudeness, you are mistaken. The "General Public" (taxpayers!) give money to these foundations through government grants. This is not rudeness. Anyways, my point is: There are rude people who are cruel to disabilities, but the general public isn't cruel to these people.
Critically Endangered Animals should be sent to sanctuaries

Their Benefit and ImportanceAccording to Scientific American, tons of wildlife reserves are actively trying to increase dwindling populations of endangered animal species. Several across North America participate in the ‘Association of Zoos and Aquarium’s Species Survival Plan program, which, by the name, you can preempt is a movement for the preservation of wildlife species. The SSP and related programs have been reported to bring back many critically endangered species back into the wild, as the objective is to reintroduce them back into their natural habitats. These species include black-footed ferrets, red wolves, and California Condors. But why is this needed? Why do humans need to take accountability for the decrease in population of animal species? This is because, as you can see in my third source, almost all of the major reasons for animal extinction are because of humans. Without sanctuaries, animals simply cannot fight for survival on their own. While poaching and habitat destruction laws have been put in place, I believe that nature reserves currently conserve the most endangered species right now. This is because humans will be humans. Illegal poaching is extremely prominent today, and trees are constantly being cut down for pencils, paper, and woodwork. However, let’s go into more depth about illegal poaching. According to my fourth source (WWF), illegal poaching and wildlife crime has spiked over the years, and those found guilty are given light sentences. In fact, this new trend threatens to overturn years of wildlife conservation. Rhino poaching has gone from 13 (2007) to 1,004 (2013), which is a 7,700% difference. The exploitation of elephants and tigers is also well known.We need wildlife sanctuaries and zoos because this is what endangered species in the wild are facing up against. The legal system simply isn’t enough to prevent certain animals from going extinct, and sanctuaries around the world have taken the initiative to try and fix humanity’s impact on wildlife. This is why, as I’ve explained earlier, it’s so important for such sanctuaries to exist. Not only would several animal species most likely suffer without them (would the black-footed ferrets ever have returned to wildlife with a healthy population?), but it’s important for humans to be responsible for other humans’ actions. (1) https://www.scientificamerican.com...(2) http://www.visitorguard.com... (3) https://speakupforthevoiceless.org...(4) https://www.worldwildlife.org...
Critically Endangered Animals should be sent to sanctuaries

The Contender argued that we should not try and save a species if it can no longer exist in its natural habitat. This is simply illogical. What if this animal provides some sort of service to humans or the world? An analogy would be bees and agriculture; in several scenarios, species that sanctuaries try to save, in our perception, need to be saved. It doesn’t even end there. What would happen to their food chain? The effects of this animal’s loss in their ecosystem could lead to the further extinction of several other animal, plant and insect species. As there are several more reasons, I advise you to look at my first source.While you use evolution to support your argument, this, despite your perception is subjective.I also question the validity of “The only way to revive a species is to either eliminate the threat to its survival or relocate it to another place where that threat is eliminated.” Firstly, the main way these sanctuaries aim to reintroduce select animals back into their habitat is by breeding; the objective is to set a sustainable population for critically endangered species. Eliminating the animal’s habitual threat is commonly a legal matter (poaching laws, etc.), so this can’t be used against nature reserves. While I agree this is an issue, I don’t believe it deflates the purpose of an animal sanctuary (also, the thylacine is extinct, so reserves couldn’t try to save it anyways).I disagree; with Google searches I’ve concluded that it’s simply not as easy (and in fact extremely unlikely) for poachers to ‘illegally enter’ wildlife reserves for the purpose of hunting animals. I couldn’t find any online, and, according to Wikipedia, nature reserves are “protected areas”. With the resources available I find your argument illogical and not well-backed.Finally, your whale point doesn’t have anything to do with this debate. I’ve seen SeaWorld documentaries, sure, but that doesn’t fit with my definition (see opening statement) of a sanctuary. A pool in a stadium with a plethora of cheering humans is not similar to it’s natural habitat at all. The wildlife reservations I’m arguing for can clearly be observed, again, in r1. These sanctuaries are big, meet all of the species requirements, and almost have no real ramification on the animal’s growth or lifestyle (your captivity point).Sources:(1) http://simplyeducate.me...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Smoking Should Be Banned

I can see the logic in your statement and I agree that smoking isn't a healthy habit, but I must argue that your viewpoint that a product should be banned based on necessity is moot. To say that cigarettes are unnecessary isn't a far statement from saying that alcohol is unnecessary. Again, I agree that smoking is disastrous to one's health, but to say that a product that has such a secure foothold in the US should be banned reminds me of a familiar story. The story of prohibition is a tale of what happens when you try to take a commodity away from the public that they enjoy and utilize so intimately with their social lives. My only other remaining point at this time is that Tobacco companies, regardless of heavy taxation, large warning labels, frequent bashing by the media, and limited advertisement options is still around. This essentially states that there are people who still want to imbibe tobacco regardless of adversity. Until people decide to stop buying, it will remain.
Smoking Should Be Banned

I believe that smoking should be banned in the U.S, and apparently everyone else does too, according to a poll on debait.org where a majority of the voters voted that we should ban smoking. I also have two other reasons that I believe we should ban smoking. My first reason is that cigarettes aren't necessary in the first place. People spend all of their money on cigarettes, when they don't need them at all. Quitting is easier than they all make it seem. My second reason is that we all know that smoking is extremely bad for you. according to Veritasium, the most radioactive place you can find, is a smoker"s lungs. Yes, that means that a smoker"s lungs are more radioactive than Chernobyl. Do you want lungs more radioactive than Chernobyl? I didn't think so.
Gun Control is an important issue in Canada and the US

Hello all, Although I am not including arguments in my first post, I will be requesting that the opposition have BOP. This makes the debate awkward but it seems to me that the common assumption here is that gun control is an issue of great importance. To rephrase my argument, I am saying that gun control is not important to the present or future of Canada and the United States. My opponent is welcome to argue from either the pro side of gun control (i.e. firearms should be banned) or the con side (i.e. firearms should not be banned) or both. I understand that important is a relative term I am fairly sure that both the opposition and viewers will understand what is being debated. I therefore await my opponent's arguments!
Laws to protect soldiers from protesting

Here is the thing; you are never actually responding to the main argument i make about how soldiers ought to have the same protection as everybody else. The lack of response to this is not surprising considering there is no reason you can give without going against the basic American tenets of freedom and equality. Stop calling Phelps a woman or a group, his name is Fred. Every thing you have as a reason to ban this speech is a sensationalized example with no real harms to it. A slippery slope to violence against military families is ridiculous. We don't preemptively execute all citizens who speed on the chance that they could get worse and kill somebody in an accident. It is their right to protest verbally, just as it is your right to make the nonsensical arguments you are making now. If the family wants a private funeral it can have it as long as that is made clear. When violated that would be a crime. Tossing garbage in a grave is well beyond the scope of the debate considering we are talking about speech. There is no way to draw a line between free speech and abuse, that is why free speech is allowed completely. If it hurts somebody there are civil suits. So yes soldiers deserve protection-the exact same protection as everybody else.