BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ultimate Goal of the Gun Control Lobby is to Ban and Confiscate All Guns

You stated that if the goal is to eliminate mass shootings, then the only way to do that is to ban practically all guns. This is not necessarily true. Take examples from other mass murders involving guns. Two notable examples that come to mind are PAL flight 773 and PSA flight 1771. These two incidents involved hijacking the plane with a gun, killing the pilots, and pushing the plane into the ground. The outcome was not to ban guns on airplanes. For PAL 773, it was to lock the cockpit doors. This effectively dealt with the issue, without banning guns. On PSA 1771, guns had been banned at the time, but staff were allowed to bypass security checks. After that incident, all staff were required to be checked. There has not been a gun hijacking on a US flight ever since. My point in bringing up these examples is to show that other measures can achieve the goal of preventing mass shootings, without banning guns. I understand that you may think these examples are irrelevant because only 2-4 were actually shot on those flights, but to find more relevant information we must leave the US for a moment. In countries such as Israel, where security must be stringent at all times with NO exception, you may not enter a mall without passing through a metal detector and being searched. Ever since this measure has been implemented, there have been no mass shootings in Israeli malls. (By the way, soldiers in Israel may carry their assault rifle wherever they go, including in a mall. And, in fact, the government recommends carrying a gun with you if you go hiking, in case you need to protect yourself. ) This proves that a gun ban is not the only way to stop mass shootings. Essentially, the Brady Campaign is not fighting for banning guns, only to control them in order to reduce violence. Like I just proved, a ban is not the only way to achieve the goal of reduced violence. Heck, I'm sure that if the gun violence rates were as low as the UK, the Brady Campaign wouldn't even exist! Surprisingly enough, the rate of gun deaths per capita is 5x higher in the US than in Israel. This shows that countries like the US need better regulation and control of guns. This is the goal of the Brady Campaign. There is no reason that they'd want guns to be banned. Because their main goal is to reduce gun violence, and that can obtained through other measures, they will do what it takes to lower violence. If that's to ban guns, so be it, but it can be achieved through other methods, and therefore a total ban is NOT the agenda of the Brady Campaign. Although it's true that definitions for Saturday Night Specials were very vague, the goal was obviously not to ban whatever they want. Their point was to try to keep gun ownership down, because there is a clear direct correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, intentional or not. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.gunpolicy.org...http://bradycampaign.org..._____________________________Thank you very much!
The Ultimate Goal of the Gun Control Lobby is to Ban and Confiscate All Guns

For anyone reading this debate, my opponent couldn't access his computer so he wrote his rebuttal to round 3 in the comments. Piers Morgan "try our way" You mention how Piers goes on to say that he doesn't have an agenda he wants to make America safer. He probably believes that is his ultimate goal, but nonetheless "let's try our way," or "trying the British way," is a complete gun ban. Also, Piers has made it clear many times that he takes this gun control debate extremely seriously, so I doubt he was speaking sarcastically, but I'll play along and assume we have a stalemate. As a side note, less gun murders does not necessarily dictate less murders or less deaths, but that's a different debate. As for the high capacity magazine bans, we have to face that it does appear to be moving towards a total ban, as is the case in New York. I don't want to get into a long debate over high capacity magazines, but I will say there are instances where people have needed more than even 15 shots to defend themselves, and how many lives would be saved from needing to reload for 2 seconds is uncertain, as is illustrated by the Virginia Tech shooting. However if the goal is to eliminate mass shootings, then the only way to do that is to ban practically all guns. Therefore if we focus solely on reducing mass shootings, we must acknowledge that the goal is to ban and confiscate all guns. I would argue that the ultimate agenda of the Brady Campaign is unchanged mainly because of how they still continue to present the disproven Kellerman statistic and the progression of high capacity magazine bans.. They were unsuccessful in achieving their previous goals so they toned down their agenda to meet smaller goals in the meantime. Lastly for the Saturday Night Specials, the biggest problem with it is the vague definition of them and the inaccuracy of the proposed use of them. if the had been successful in passing the ban on Saturday Night Specials, the definition could've been easily manipulated to encompass any gun cheap enough for regular citizens to afford. Criminals who tend to use guns actually tend to be drug dealers or gangsters who finance their gun use from the drug trade, and they actually prefer to use newer, more expensive guns in crimes. Ultimately the Saturday Night Special ban would've only affected people poorer Americans seeking a gun for protection. However the main thing to remember is that this definition was so vague that it could have encompassed whatever they wanted.
The Ultimate Goal of the Gun Control Lobby is to Ban and Confiscate All Guns

I am glad to participate in this debate. It should be entertaining."Given the history of the Gun Control Lobby, audio recordings, failed proposals made by the pro-gun control politicians, and the structure of proposed gun laws, and how certain gun laws have progressed, I argue that the gun-control lobby is in fact "coming for your guns."I will immediately attack this statement with the most obvious response: SOURCES PLEASE!Please provide a source that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gun Control Lobby's ultimate agenda is to achieve the goal of a total gun ban.Thank you.
The Ultimate Goal of the Gun Control Lobby is to Ban and Confiscate All Guns

This is NOT a debate on whether or not guns should or should not be banned, nor if guns should or should not be controlled more heavily. I can argue against most forms of gun control and gun bans, however that is a different debate. If my opponent or anyone reading this wishes to debate the pros, cons, and effects of guns in society, please send me the challenge. This debate refers exclusively to private firearm ownership. Firearms possessed by the police, military, and secret services are exempted.This debate is designed to gauge the behavior of the gun-control crowd and determine if their ultimate goals are to simply regulate firearms as they say or if they wish to ban private firearm ownership. I will not make any arguments using or referencing common conspiracy theories such as the existence of the illuminati. Proposed Definitions:Gun Control: regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns Gun Ban: criminalizing the sale, possession, and distribution of firearms. Gun Confiscation: mandatory or forceful repossession of privately owned firearms to be given to the government to be destroyed or reused. Mandatory Gun Buyback Programs are also considered gun confiscation. Gun Control Lobby: The BradyCampaign and any of their affiliate organizations. These organizations include the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Violence Policy Center, Senator Feinstein's Administration, Mayor Bloomberg's Administration, and Barack Obama's Administration.My Arguments: Normally I am extremely cautious about using a slippery slope argument, however in the case of gun control it appears to be valid. Given the history of the Gun Control Lobby, audio recordings, failed proposals made by the pro-gun control politicians, and the structure of proposed gun laws, and how certain gun laws have progressed, I argue that the gun-control lobby is in fact "coming for your guns."
Universal Basic Income is a good thing

So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? "Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these "welfare bums" actually reenter the job market. ---"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. "Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. "The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. " [4]----"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.
Universal Basic Income is a good thing

I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach "climax" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a "bad thing" for the moment.
God doe not exist.

You should not really be including "Christianity is the correct religion" in this argument. It isn't part of the debate and it is a whole debate on it's own. However, I am willing to bite - just know it is considered bad practice in a debate to add points to the original hypothesis. Christianity is not the bible therefore you don't need to prove the religion is valid, only the book. Your first point is correct as it is a rule of epistemology. However the next two points cannot be known with current science. The Vilekin Theorem shows that the expansion of the universe must have had a point in time from which it originated, which is widely accepted to be the big bang. However, the big bang claims to show how matter and space essentially began. It does not show the origin of energy. The start of the big bang assumes an infinitely small singularity that "evolved" into the universe it does not assume the creation of the universe at all because, science still just does not know how or if the universe began. I will continue for the sake of argument that the universe has a creation based beginning that therefore requires a causation. The laws the universe follow cannot be known to exists outside the universe because we cannot observe outside the universe. This statement also has an equal opposite as the fact is, if you cannot observe what lies beyond the universe you cannot know what laws apply. This means that there could be time, material and a whole other universe outside of this one but, we just cannot know because it cannot be observed. The largest fundamental flaw in all written history is that it is written. If I wrote a book now claiming to know God and it became one of the sole things that survived this civilization - would there be a religion seven thousand years later? Therefore any good historian will rely on multiple writings and archaeological evidence to back up any claim. The entire argument by which you debate Christianity is invalid. You have only used the bible as source of your evidence. None of the online sources were more than just interpretations of the bible. Which would then bring me back to the book of unicorns. Maybe the paper at the bottom (your source 9)may have some good proof but I can't find any online version of it, which is a shame because it sounds like it would be a decent argument for the integrity of the bible. But to me, without any archaeological claim or any other account the bible is just a book of legends whereby, someone kept saying a story until they decided to write it down. . You cannot claim historical fact from the bible alone as it historical accuracy is still being debated due to it's lack of archaeological evidence and dated accounts.
God doe not exist.

On a logical level. The reasoning by which god must exist is the same reason that allows me to claim unicorns exist. 1. It is tasked with you, (against) to show me that there are unicorns. Until you find a unicorn I won't believe you. They can exist beyond the realm of existence because they are magical. Therefore unicorns exist. 2. There are books that are really old which talk about unicorns existing. 3. There is no evidence to suggest unicorns don't exist. 4. Ahh I give up. Just debate me about god - with a compelling argument. I do actually want to believe in God because it made me happier as a child. I just can't because God's existence cannot be proved and relies on blind faith. Disprove the arguments and maybe give some of your own. Who knows? Maybe you might help someone find faith.
HIV/AIDS testing should be manadatory for all college freshmen in the U.S.

Pro has posted no arguments, so therefore it is impossible for me to provide a rebuttal. I will however provide a basic affirmative argument for why this resolution should not be accepted. This resolution presupposes sexual activity either has or will happen for college freshmen. The simple fact is that this is not the case. Sexual activity is a deeply personal, and often religious, decision. This kind of assumption is insulting to adults who have the right to make their own decisions regarding their own health and sexual activity.
Resolved: Income Taxation in General is Better four Us All.

Thank you for your continued interest in this debate, Danononian. "With inflation rising and the demand for more money and better services from teachers rise[,] better teachers will find new jobs in other schools that pay more and leave our schools with the idiot teachers[,] in fact. My 7th grade math teacher didn[']t even know how to do the most basic stuff[,] such as multiplying fractions, dividing decimals[,] and many more easy simple things that w[ere] easy to learn... and she was pa[i]d about [$]20[,000 per] year." May I remind you that the average teacher salaries that I used to support my argument are from public schools, not Catholic schools, which is exactly what you attended in seventh grade. "Also[,] when you say not spending is a good thing, many people who have many kids... are working as hard as possible in order to feed their family cannot afford the payments when they live in a country with [a] constitution that has the [three] words, 'We the people...'" 1._ I know, poverty is very, very sad, but extorting money from the most productive members of society is not the solution. In fact, it contributes to the everlasting problem of poverty, as those productive members of society cannot afford to ask those in poverty to perform services in which those in poverty would receive financial compensation for those services. It is ludicrous. 2._ "... When they live in a country with [a] constitution that has the [three] words, 'We the people...'" is a non sequitur, and is misleading. "Also[,] during the r[eig]n of King Louis XVI and Mar[ie] Antoinette, many people were starving because they had no help from their queen or king to survive or get wheat from. Instead[,] many people[,] in order to survive[,] had resorted to cannibalism and prostitution..." Forget the wheat! What about the potatoes Louis XVI advised the peasants to plant for human consumption? The peasants did not listen and starved to death as a result. It was a very sad example of ignorance. As you can see, my opponent has not proved to me that income taxation in general is better for us all. I have arrived ate the conclusion of this debate. Thank you all.
Resolved: Income Taxation in General is Better four Us All.

when u have said that the United Arab emirates had many companies, like haliburton go to dubai, and their economy went off like a rocket. Our economy is in such a mess right now, so they are shameful to take american jobs and end them overseas.Also I got my statistics from this site: http://www.education.com... If it is not in blue I have no idea why, also with inflation rising and the demand for more money and better services from teachers rise better teachers will find new jobs in other schools that pay more and leave our schools with the idiot teachers in fact. My 7th grade math teacher didnt even know how to do the most basic stuff such as multiplying fractions,dividing decimals and many more easy simple things that was easy to learn ( I learned math on my own course) and she was payed about 20 grand a year. Also when you say not spending is a good thing, many people who have many kids and are working as hard as possible in order to feed their family cannot afford the payments when they live in a country with the constitution that has the 3 words "We the people ....". Also during the rain of King Louis XVI and Mary Antoinette, many people were starving because, they had no help from their queen or king to survive or get wheat from, instead many people in order to survive had resorted to cannibalism and prostitution, though not much cannibalism today because, it is looked down upon but more of prostitution because,some people in the U.S have a hard time living and had to resort to many horrible things in order to survive.(I know I may have gone off topic for a bit in one part of the argument and I do apologize)
Resolved: Income Taxation in General is Better four Us All.

"Our government is in at least a trillion dollars in debt and because of Bush's policies that [Obama] will be lighter on taxes for the rich and not for the poor[. ]Our country is not having the full amount of money it needs to be able to function and get out of this debt." Couldn't not spending be a better solution? "Our public school system is so bad right now that at least 250,000 teachers a year are quitting because of how low their pay checks are." 1._ Where did you get the statistics that 250,000 teachers a year are quitting for the reason of low paychecks? 2._ Is $40,000 a reasonable amount of money to be made in a 9-month year? http://www.payscale.com... Where are we supposed to get that money[? ]From the rich[,] who have a large income may benefit the country. How may it benefit the country? Before the economic crisis, what happened with the United Arab Emirates, which have no income tax? Let's see, several American companies (Most notably Haliburton) have moved to Dubai. Result: Economy took off like a rocket! http://www.infoprod.co.il... Your rebuttal, Danononian?
Resolved: Income Taxation in General is Better four Us All.

I would first like to say I accept ur debate and I hope to have fun. But now for the topic our government is in at least a trillion dollars in debt and because, of bush's policies that he will be lighter on taxes for the rich and not the poor our country is not having the full amount of money it needs to be able to function and get out of this debt, also our public school system is so bad right now that at least 250,000 teachers a year are quitting because, of how low their pay checks are. Many of our politicians (Obama) have said,"we need smaller classes and higher wages for the teachers."Where are we supposed to get that money.From the rich who have a large income may benefit the country
Resolved: Income Taxation in General is Better four Us All.

Income tax defined: "a tax levied on the financial income of people, corporations, or other legal entities." http://en.wikipedia.org... Using this definition, I will seek to defend the position of not levying any taxes on the financial incomes of people, corporations, or other legal entities, and I consider the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to merely legalize extortion of incomes by the federal and state governments. I would like my opponent to prove me otherwise.