BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should not stop people from committing suicide.

I am not speaking on this from a moralistic standpoint. You are not correct, when saying that the goal is not reproduction. Scientifically, it is. Yes, individuals have goals that they set up for themselves. I never said that they don't. But, scientifically, and factually, the ultimate goal for every species, is reproduction. I also did not say that they don't have the right to reproduce, only that they shouldn't, because it will pass on the genes, causing further suffering. If the parent were to have commit suicide, like they wanted to, then the offspring would not be suffering. You say that people are not born with mental illness, but that is not true. That is why many doctors ask if there is a history of mental illness in a family before specific types of treatment, and to help with diagnostics. Mental illnesses are hereditary. Yes, they can be the result of something. I myself, have PTSD. Might I add, from a failed suicide attempt that ended up taking someone else's life. I am doing a public service by not passing on my imperfect genes. From a moralistic standpoint, I still stand with my belief. Why would you want to force someone to live a life that they don't want? Is someone with a chronic mental illness not suffering? Yes, there are medications and treatments. But, medications are not a cure-all, and seldom, have people reported recovery after the use of medication. Some people can "get better". Others, and dare I say, most, cannot, and will not. Death would be release for those people. If someone with suicidal thoughts has the urge to seek "help", and not act on the thoughts, then all be it. That is their choice. But you cannot force a person that does not have a will to live, to live. I did not say, and will not ever say that suicide should ever be enforced. Suicide is a choice. And what do we do to people who want to commit suicide? We put them in hospitals and keep them locked up, until we feel they aren't "at risk" any longer. But what does that do? It causes distress to the person, and it forces unwanted treatment. Why do we not allow these people to be rid of something that is rightfully theirs to take? Because of "potential"? Forgive me, but I think that is utterly ridiculous to force someones' suffering because society may, or may not (selfishly) benefit from that person living. Society has no clue whether or not that person being forced to live is a good thing. But that person, does know that they do not want to suffer.
We should not stop people from committing suicide.

Hello. I will be against the act suicide, and will be arguing that it should be prevented. While suicide can't always be prevented. Depression can. A lot of mental illnesses can be treated in lots of ways. Therapy, Lobotomy, medications, and feeling loved. The ultimate goal for humans is NOT reproduction. Humans set out their own goals and individually are different from one another. One of the biggest goals is just happiness in itself. I believe we are all interconnected in someway. Suicide does more harm than it does good. It causes pain within families and grief. It takes away potential of a person that could have been, maybe someone with a cure for cancer or the next great invention. Quite simply, suicide is not needed, it never will be the answer for anything. Life has its ups and downs, you can't have sunshine within rain, you can't have joy without pain. You'll be happy, and some days you'll be sad maybe even for days. Morally speaking on religious talk, suicide is a sin. (This is not saying god exists, but if there were a god, it best to take some consideration of the sins and commandments). I think we gotta understand why people kill themselves first, obviously no one has killed themselves out of just doing it. Usually they are depressed 90% of the time. Depression can be solved. Mental illness is not something someone is born with, it's something that occurs after having a deep impact on someones life. Everyone has experienced depression. Some people need more help than others, and more often than not, almost always, those people who suicide and kill themselves have not gotten the help they needed. Obviously you can't stop someone committing suicide, but it should be prevented. A big goal in life that isn't reproduction is to live as long as possible. Anyone considering suicide should attempt to get the help they need and understand that there is a better solution cause there is. Suicide is also illegal in some parts of the world. Yes no one can stop someone from killing themselves, but doing so has actions that follow like properties and shares between family members, and debt, and just everything. By law if suicide is illegal, then you shouldn't do it just like any other crime that is illegal and it should be prevented. Just another reason. As for reproducing, everyone has that right to reproduce. The pro would have to continue on about this part of the argument and seriously provide a answer to that problem he brought up. I will hold rest of my thoughts and arguments for the next rounds.
We should not stop people from committing suicide.

From a scientific standpoint, the main reason we should not try and stop people from committing suicide, is because mental illnesses are often hereditary. The ultimate goal for all animals, (humans included) is reproduction. So, if a human with mental illness succeeds as a human being, and they reproduce, then that offspring is weaker, because of the mental illness. Suicide is the closest thing humans have to natural selection. If someone has a chemical imbalance, they have an imperfect brain, and are not fit to be with the rest of society. I am not sating everyone with a mental illness should be killed, I am saying that they should not be allowed to reproduce, and pass on their toxic genes. A very effective way of controlling the population of people with mental illnesses, is to let them take care of themselves.
The AR-15 is NOT a "assault" rifle.

In the response to the previous mass shootings, I would like to argue that the AR-15 is NOT a "assault" rifle as many would claim that it is. Many [liberals] have proposed that the gun be banned, even at the march for lives event, many of the participants there had no concept of what an assault rifle truly was. The AR-15 stands for "Armalite Rifle" as made/designed originally by the company, not "assault" rifle as liberals from the decade of the 1980s have termed the gun. I will wait for my opponent to give his argument in the next round of the debate. Now for the basic ground rules: 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
The AR-15 is NOT a "assault" rifle.

Rebuttals: Definitions of the "assault" rifle As you have provided definitions from that website, I will explain the first definition, then the second. #1. The AR-15 cannot be set to "automatic firing" mode.An AR-15 in its stock form can only be able to fire in a "semi-automatic mode", only through special modifications, of which would be expensive along with an lengthy background check conducted by the FBI, could an AR-15 become a "assault rifle", capable of both automatic and semi-automatic functions.#2. Resemblance to an assault rifle.Simply because it resembles an "military" rifle does not mean that the AR-15 is a assault rifle. A similar example can be provided: These are two planes, they both resemble the real German BF-109 G6 models. A person would call these two planes actual "fighters" though they are not even capable for combat due to them not having any cannons, they are "mock up" planes, a "fighter" plane is any aircraft capable of combat, these two planes are NOT fighters, they are simply replica/mock planes of the original messerschmitt Bf-109s. The same with my previous post of the comparison of the AR-15 versus an actual assault rifle, capable of automatic and semi-automatic firing. Even though the AR-15 LOOKS like an assault rifle, it does not mean it is an actual assault rifle. Conclusion:The Con has not proved how the AR-15 is an assault rifle as being capable of automatic and semi-automatic firing.
The AR-15 is NOT a "assault" rifle.

From Merriam Webster Dictionary: Definition of assault rifle : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire https://www.merriam-webster.com... So now you have this, as well as the Wikipedia entry, both confirming that "assault" rifles refer to military-style semi-auto guns. Industry special interest groups, such as the one you quote, do not have the prerogative to rewrite the English language as they see fit.
The AR-15 is NOT a "assault" rifle.

It would have been nice if you put citations based on your argument for this round, to continue."An assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of firing off rounds at a high speed" • A standard AR-15 does not fire off rounds at a high speed• A assault rifle would be of "military-style" capable of automatic firing• A AR-15 again stands for "Armalite" and comes in semi-automatic models• A bump stockThe AR-15 was made as a semi-automatic version of the original military style M16. It would discharge rounds per trigger pull: There are the differences between the two: one is capable of automatic firing, which the other is considered an actual "assault" rifle" the other as its name stands for "Armalite" which is semi-automatic, which it is unable to discharge rounds at a high speed. To even get an fully automatic AR-15 would be costly and there would be EXTENSIVE background checks before a person would even consider buying that version of the rifle. Sources used: [https://www.tallahassee.com...] [https://www.nssf.org...]
The AR-15 is NOT a "assault" rifle.

I will argue that your claim violates your rule #8: "For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate" "Assault" weapon is not a technical term. It therefore can only be wrong if the common understanding is a misrepresentation of reality. Nor is it a trademarked term, so however it's named by the company is irrelevant (Dove is still soap, even when the company says it's not. A hotel is still a hotel, even if the brand calls it an "experience") The general concept of an assault weapon is a firearm uniquely suited for modern combat. The physical characteristics of an assault weapon show that this concept is accurate. It delivers greater power than a handgun, and maneuverability and firing rate greater than hunting rifles. They can accommodate magazines that hold more bullets than both. They are especially suitable for situations involving simultaneous targets and/or very little time. Moreover, assault weapons are derived from standard infantry weapons such as the M-16 and AK-47. As for Pro's claim that March for Our Lives kids don't understand what an assault weapon "truly" is, I'd argue that opposite. Gun rights people see the AR-15 as a symbol. It's an abstract placeholder for the fictionalized war on the 2nd amendment. It's an object of undeserved grievance. To a survivor, it's a physical reality. If you haven't been shot at with one, or killed a child with one, you aren't in a place to talk about the "truth" of assault weapons in the hand of private citizens. A point of consideration: AR-15s are M16s with firing mechanisms that have been limited by law. I'm curious how gun rights advocates regard this fact. Somehow the gun is a touchstone for gun rights, yet it's a weapon created to accommodate gun control. Any comment you have on this is appreciated. Maybe I'll learn something.
Homosexuality is psychological and not biological.

"While that may be technically true, it does not prove or show that homosexuality is biological or genetically driven."Purpose of the quoted statement wasn't an attempt to definitely prove that homosexuality has a genetic basis - merely that the lack of an apparent evolutionary incentive for it does not automatically mean there cannot be any genetic basis at all."is there any empirical evidence that homosexuality is biological or genetic in origin?"Entirely? No. In (significant) part? Most definitely (1 - 9)."Can the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual be measured by differences in the brain?"Yes, it can (10 - 12)"That's a pretty damning % in itself, and I would suggest to you that the same % would not be reflected in heterosexual marriage."Most likely - that's still of no support to your original statement. "About half" is not nearly the same thing as "almost all"."While there may be 'open' marriages among heterosexuals, I would challenge you to show us any conclusive evidence that demonstrates that the ratio is even close to half. "Why? I never stated it was (and would not expect it to be)."Thus far you have not proven my case to be wrong."I provided several studies in my first reply (and multiple more in this one), which lent credence to a (partly) biological view of homosexuality. Pro's response did not contain so much as an acknowledgement.Sources:1) http://journals.cambridge.org...2) http://www.jstor.org...3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4) http://link.springer.com...5) http://journals.plos.org...6) http://escholarship.org...7) http://faculty.bennington.edu...8) http://www.nature.com... 9) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...10) http://content.time.com...11) http://www.sciencedirect.com...12) http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Homosexuality is psychological and not biological.

"There is no firm biological basis to homosexuality"Incorrect (1 - 4)."I do not believe there is any evolutionary basis to homosexuality in mankind,"An evolutionary basis or incentive for homosexuality to exist is not necessary for it to be (at least partly) biological in nature."On average homosexuals live 20yrs less than heterosexuals."This is correct, though by itself not indicative of anything other than homosexuals having shorter average lifespans. There is research that suggests this is due to a myriad of social factors - not homosexuality itself (5). "Just as the heavy drinker or heavy smoker may grow sick and die younger due to practices that his body has not naturally evolved to adapt to, so too does the sexually active homosexual, whose body has not evolved to have sex of that type."Bad analogy. There is a direct link between smoking/drinking and fatal conditions . Pro has provided no such evidence for a direct link between homosexual activity and higher death rates."It is also a little known fact that almost all homosexual marriages are in fact "open" marriages."Another distortion. Pro's link in support of this only found that to be the case in "about half of all couples" - not "almost all"."The greater predisposition toward self- medicating, high risk taking, dangerous behaviours, greater predisposition to self- harm and suicide are all more prevalent among homosexuals not, as the media may have you believe, down to random "hate", but simply that all of those things are entirely consistent with someone that has a mental health issue."The validity (or lack thereof) of this argument is of absolutely no relevance to the overall debate. Pro's position is that homosexuality is only a psychological condition, and not biological - not wether or not it is/should be classified as a mental disorder/health issue.Absolutely no data has been provided to support Pro's assertion that these behaviors are caused by homosexuality itself. It's also worth mentioning that a population having higher rates of those particular behaviors isn't necessarily indicative of a mental disorder - this is commonly found amongst several populations which are definitely not collective sufferers of mental disorders (black Americans, for example).Citations and sources:1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2) http://news.stanford.edu...3) http://www.bio.davidson.edu...4) http://www.sciencemag.org...5) http://www.eurekalert.org...
Homosexuality is psychological and not biological.

To begin with, I would like to point out that if homosexuality were to be classified as a mental disorder, it would have no effect on wether it has a biological basis or not. I will also refrain from commenting on wether or not it should be classified as a mental disorder, as I don't know nearly enough as to what the reasoning for having it there in the first place was.While Pro does make a compelling case against the reasons that caused homosexuality to be taken off the DSM, this does not do much to provide significant (if any) support to his standpoint in the debate. Merely being listed in the DSM does not make a condition totally psychological - many disorders listed there (such as ADHD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia) are partly heritable.Unfortunately for Pro, the near-entirety of his argument in this round consisted of a criticism of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Pro also did nothing to criticize the prior evidence that homosexuality has a significantly biological foundation. If the data presented is correct, then Pro's initial statement (that "there is no firm biological basis to homosexuality") is patently incorrect.As I have demonstrated repeatedly in the previous rounds, genetics do play a significant role in determining sexual orientation. And while that may not be the only relevant factor, to totally deny their influence, and label it as exclusively psychological would be a dismissal of the vast amounts of data that indicate this is not the case.
Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

I will be arguing for Carl Shmit's "the Politic" and martial law with an artificial state of emergency. My points are quite simply in that it will always work. A Great Lie will almost contain itself as those who disagree where tinfoil hats. I promise total stability and a chance for personal improvement thru war. never ending war tasking presidence over all issues the war and it's baggage are of utmost import. Your government will fail, you will have internal conflict that will set off a civil war and I will survive.
Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

My position: I will be arguing that minarcho-socialism should be preferred to your choice of government and/or economy. Specifically, the type of socialism(I realize socialism is broad so I will narrow it down to a specific type) that I will be arguing for is cooperative individualism. So, my argument will be thus: minarchism should be preferred to your choice of government, and cooperative individualism should be prefered to your choice of economy.Opponent's position: My opponent may share one view of mine, either government or economic type. So, you can either agree with me about cooperative individualism, or about minarchism. You shouldn't do both, otherwise we have nothing to debate on. I would prefer to debate someone who shares neither of my views though. Still, I won't complain if someone who is also a minarchist debates me or who is also a socialist. Anyways, the opponent will be arguing why their economics and/or government should be preferred to minarchism and/or cooperative individualismRules of debate:1) No ad hominem, personal insults, or attacks2) No rebuttals in the first round that is used for debate3) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for debate since I am not using round 1 for debate. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for debate even between us4) No new arguments in the last round that is used for debate. New facts and information is allowed, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.If any of the above rules are violated by either side, this is justification for voters to give the point in conduct to the side who ddid not vioalate them.Definitions of terms:Minarchism: a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for the state to exist solely to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. [1]Cooperative Individualism: the school of thought [under cooperative economics] favouring workers' co-operative societies[2]Cooperative economics: a field of economics that incorporates socialist economics, co-operative studies, and political economy toward the study and management of co-operatives[2] Worker cooperative: a cooperative owned and self-managed by its workers.[3]Cooperative: an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business. [4] Now, I would provide a definition for socialism, but I don't think it is necessary since I am specifically arguing for cooperative individualism, which is a type of socialism as you can see by the definition of cooperative economics, of which cooperative individualism is a branch of. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

Majority of people owning guns wouldn't be much of a threat. For one, most people understand it's wrong to kill someone for no good reason or for selfish reasons. One only needs to look at the percentage of gun owners who actually kill other people and you will see it is not really something to worry about.All you have to do is be able to get along in society, and you probably won't ever get shot by a person.
Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

I admit that what my opponent is arguing for would be more beneficial for security of the people, at least at first, but this comes down to the age old debate of whether we'd want security or more freedoms. I would argue that freedom is better. Here's why:With freedom, you are of course more able to do the things you want to do. Now, while we may be sacrificing security for freedom, I would argue it is possible for every citizen to protect themselves. This is why it is important to allow a universal right to arms. If, say, a terrorist were to hijack a plane, if other people were armed on the plane, then the terrorist could be stopped. Rather than the state being invasive into people's privacy for what they take onto a plane, which doesn't always work anyways, I mean we've had terrorist attacks even after the patriot act was passed among other measures: if the people were armed there would be less chance for terrorists to get away with terror. Thus, I argue that with freedom, comes the abillity to protect oneself. Freedom allows for self-security, where as national security doesn't allow for as much freedom. If you focus on national security, you often times don't get either liberty or security. However, if the focus is on national liberty, then the people themselves are the ones who can defend themselves because they are allowed to have weaponry equal to that of what the military has at its disposal. It may not be as affective for individuals to protect themselves than if the government did it, but at least you have maximimum liberty, and maybe a moderate level of security. With a focus on national security at the price of liberty, you get no liberty, but a good amount of security. With one, you can have both, with the other, you only get one in a perfect world. I would still argue that the security you get from national security measures is not sufficient.