BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun control

It has to start sometime. If it doesn't the shootings will only get worse and worse. And on top of all that we are basically giving guns to everyone. No background checks what so ever. It doesn't make sense to feed a fire if you want it extinguished so why are we feeding guns into the criminal world. Terrorist. Drug dealers. And mass murderers can all get guns as easy as a man can buy bread. The beginning might be a little bumpy but if no one will enforce laws they will never work. When our founding fathers placed the second amendment they were thinking of the single shot rifles that they used in their day not weapons made specifically for killing groups of people quickly. The Constitution was written to be changed to evolve along with society to be American. Just think fire a minute. Put yourself in the shoes off one of the victims of mass genocide. Seeing a person come in to a place you thought was safe and murder. Bam! Bam! Bam! Killing your friends and possibly you in seconds wouldn't you wish he wasn't able to shoot of that many rounds at a time. It's dangerous. I don't know about you but I don't exactly like it when people get slaughtered like cattle. Gun control is necessary. It needs to be implemented. I know violence can't be stopped but it can be slowed just like the rate of fire of the weapons we give away. Gun control is the gateway to a violence free nation.
Gun control

I am in favor of gun control. Currently buying weapons is very easy. Too easy. People on terrorist watchlist can obtain fire arms easier that a family can adopt a child. A ban of any type of dangerous assault weapon for any one and a strict background check policy for purchasing any type of firearm would drastically lower the amount of violent crimes in the USA. If you take a look at Italy, a heavily populated country like a small scale USA, has had gun control fire years and there's crime rates is much much lower than the rate in USA. Also, the Orlando massacre that killed 49 people and injured much more would have been a lot less devastating considering the reload of assault weapons vs manual reload types of guns. There gunman could have been taken down and arrested much faster and more safely if he Had not used a assault weapon. Gun control has been been implemented and the results were great. Gun control is safe.
Marching band is a sport.

To conclude my argument of con, I'd like to say that I am in no way bashing the amount of hard-work and grit that goes into marching a season of marching band. I've been through it several times, both on the field and on the podium. It's rough, it's hard to do, you put your body and your mindset to the test- But I still don't think that the fine arts equate to being a sport. If marching an 8-11 minute show is harder than running and jumping and tackling on the football field for 45 minutes, then you must have a world class constant jazz-running show (s/o to the Blue Devils). There is absolutely no way the idea of sportsmanship can equate to the idea of musicianship, and that is something you can't change. You have not addressed the fact that any marching band competition out there has completely subjective results, and you keep with your same narrative, "well if a band does competitions, then it is a sport. " Then you turn right back around with your contradictions of how "Mathletes" (whatever that is) shouldn't be considered a sport, even though THEY ALL PARTICIPATE IN A COMPETITIVE NATURE. My opponent never addressed my arguments, never rebutted, and never even came up with a different pro for their argument.
Marching band is a sport.

Marching band is a sport whether you believe it to be or not. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a sport is defined as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." <--like you said. Well if band does competitions, then it is a sport. It is right there in the definition of "sport". It is also proven that a single marching band works harder than a team of football players. I rest my case.
Marching band is a sport.

Alright, let's reiterate what the definition of a "sport" is. According to the Oxford Dictionary- Sport (n) an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual team competes against other or others for entertainment. First of all, we really have to interpret what this means. Does the physical exertion have to occur during the time of the adjudication? If that's true, then our debate here is over. If you can't march an 8 minute show without inflicting notable physical exertion on yourself, then you are not fit, and that is a problem the individual needs to address. And, to address the "individual team competes against other or others for entertainment," every competition is subjective. Any score that any band gets is at the opinion of the judge. Whereas with sports like baseball and football, it is two "teams" that go head to head with each other, in order to finish the task at hand (like getting the ball in the end zone) while exerting their physical body. Every "team" that competes in a marching band competition has their own time to shine, and never directly goes head to head with another band. And I have never heard anybody say, "most things that are competitive are sports." That's like saying the debate team is a sport, concert band competitions are sports events, ect. Anybody who says that these things are sports are wrong in their own way and that is an argument for another day. We need to focus on the topic at hand: Marching band is/is not a sport. I'll stick with my original thesis: Sports are meant for athletes to show their athletic ability and teamwork, the marching arts are meant for musicians to show their musicianship and coordination. Just because conditioning has to be done in order to ensure that members are fit enough to march an 8 minute show doesn't mean that you can automatically declare it a sport.
Marching band is a sport.

I, as an active member of a high school marching band for safety reasons will not say which can easily argue yes there is a line between fine arts and sports, marching band is on that line we show our athletic ability with all the shows and movements that we do requires physical exertion carrying a maybe 20 pound instrument marching about 12 miles on the field that is a very good way of calling something a sport. this is also a sport because it is a competitive thing most things that are competitive are sports. For example, if mathletes is a sport which uses no physical exertion at all and all they do is just sit and think and press a button I see no reason to why marching band is not a sport.
Marching band is a sport.

I, an active member in my marching band, also a person who has completed a season of drum corps with the Columbians Drum and Bugle Corps, (and preparing for another one this summer) am willing to take con. I think that there is a fine line between sports an fine arts, marching band included. Sure, it may require physical exertion, but all the judging and results at competitions are subjective. If you switch around the judges at a competition, the results will be very different than before. Sports are meant for athletes to show their athletic ability and teamwork, the marching arts are meant for musicians to show their musicianship and coordination.
bible is more than likely infallible

My opponent, though she messed up the title, is arguing that the bible is more than likely fallible. A brief read of her argument and the comment section shows this. I will show that this is in fact not the case. The bible is infallible. First, I shall define some terms, since my opponent has failed to do so. Fallible: Capable of making an error Infallible: Incapable of making an error Error: An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true. Source: American heritage dictionary All I must therefore do to show that the bible is in fact infallible is to show that it is incapable of unintentionally making an incorrect assertion. First, though, I shall reply to my opponent's points. First, my opponent cited a few rules in the bible she disagrees with. Fortunately, these viewpoints in these rules, while not held by many today, are still valid stances to have. A valid stance on a subjective issue cannot be an error, since there is no 'right' or 'wrong' stance. Lastly, my opponent brings up that Elisha called a curse upon a group of youths who were making fun of him, causing some bears to maul 42 of them. God rewards us for our faith and our good works - he rewarded Elisha here by making some bears maul a crowd of misbehaving youths. Stuff like this doesn't happen nowadays because there is no one with the amount of divine favor Elisha had asking such things. We've allowed our faith to be shaken - the fact that my opponent has even started this debate is proof enough of that. Now I shall unveil my first point as to why the bible is not infallible: I. The bible is a divinely-inspired work. Every word in the bible has God's approval. Even if something in the bible is factually incorrect, God intentionally allowed the words to be written as they are. If you read over the definition I gave of "error," you'll see that an error must be unintentional. There is intent behind every word of the bible. We just might not understand it. Sometimes God works in mysterious ways, and sometimes that means intentionally asserting something that is factually incorrect. I have refuted my opponent's points and made one of my own. That's all for this round.
You Choose The Topic!

The definition Con sites very clearly contradicts her position. Con's definition is: "Of, pertaining to, or supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns. Opposed to the restriction of gun ownership and carry. " I repeat. "Opposed to the restriction of gun ownership and carry." Con is arguing for Gun Rights in this debate, and her own definition states that she should be opposed to restricting gun ownership. Yet Con has been arguing in favor of gun ownership. Secondly, the definition clearly states that is is the "individual RIGHT to own and carry guns." This goes back to my argument on rights, an argument Con has not addressed. Lastly, in order to show that Con simply has no case against me, the site Con uses, yourdictionary.com , gives two definitions for 'gun rights': one for when it is used as a noun, and the other when it is used as an adjective. Con gives the adjective definition, but in the phrase "Abolish Gun Rights", the phrase is used as a noun. Con cited the wrong one. The definition she should have used is: "The entitlement of individuals to own and carry guns." [1] This is clearly in line with my claim, and it was poor sourcing that Con did not cite it. [1]http://www.yourdictionary.com...
You Choose The Topic!

No pro, it was not incorrect wording. Gun Rights are defined as- "Of, pertaining to, or supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns. Opposed to the restriction of gun ownership and carry. (US) Belief that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an absolute right. " (yourdictionary) Abolish- formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution). So, I believe that that clears the fog and it is my opponent who has misunderstood the debate topic. So, this debate means: That we must formerly put an end to the institution of our right to own and carry guns. Since my opponent has not given me anything else to refute, I will proceed with my speech.
You Choose The Topic!

From Con's response, it is clear that Con had intended the topic to be "Abolish private gun ownership," and the wording she originally choose was an accident. However, Con is obligated to debate the topic she had chosen. She cannot redefine words in the English language to suit her purpose. By refusing to abide by her own topic, Con has effectively forfeited this debate. Con claims the word "abolish" means "to ban." First, it is not possible to "ban" a right. Secondly, this is not the dictionary definition, and the top three Google results for "definition of abolish" define the word as follows: Abolish (verb): to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void " [dictionary.reference.com] Abolish (verb): formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution). " [Oxford dictionary] Abolish (transitive verb): to end the observance or effect of : annul " [Merriam Webster] In other words, to abolish something is to put an end to it. In the United States, abolishing Gun Rights, in other words, ending the RIGHT to own guns, would mean repealing the Second Amendment. On the other hand, abolishing Gun Ownership would stop people from owning guns. To show that Con's definition is ridiculous, let's suppose the government abolished freedom of speech. It does not mean, as Con's definition implies, that people could no longer speak. It only means the government is allowed to ban speech if they wished. They might ban certain topics, they might ban all topics, or they might not ban anything at all, in which case citizens could still speak on any topic of their choosing. Quite simply, even if you don't have to right to do something (for example, Con and I don't have the 'right' to debate on this website) you are still able to so long as the government (or in my example, the site admin) does not ban it. Thus, ending the right to own guns is very different from ending gun ownership.
You Choose The Topic!

Additionally, Con seems to have misunderstood the topic of debate, even though she personally selected and reworded this topic. This is not a debate on whether we should ban all guns, it is a debate over whether owning guns is a right. I will argue that owning guns should not be a fundamental right; instead, it should be a privilege that can be given and redacted. Unlike the right to a fair trial, which is something every person should have, there are clearly individuals who should not be permitted to own guns, in particular those who pose a danger to others. We have a similar policy for car use, and I claim that someone with a criminal record should not be allowed to own a gun for the same reason a driver with many DUIs should not be permitted to use a car: they are a danger to those around them. Furthermore, unlike cars, guns are not a necessity in society today. Thus, if being having a car is not a universal right (which it is not), clearly we do not have the right to bear arms. Con cites the second amendment in the US Constitution, which would be excellent evidence if we were debating whether the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected in the United States. However, the debate is over whether it should be a right; in other words, whether the right to bear arms should be in the constitution at all. I note that in many other countries, citizens do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Furthermore, very few countries have a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. [1] Lastly, in arguing for gun control, which explicitly denies the "right" to bear arms to a significant portion of the population, Con has presented evidence in agreement with my position. Vote Pro. [1]. http://www.bloombergview.com...
You Choose The Topic!

1) Gun rights. Specifically, in line with recent events in the US, I'd want to debate whether assault weapons should remain legal in the United States. (I am for gun rights.) 2) Capital Punishment (My position is for the Death Penalty) 3) Legalized Prostitution (My claim is it should be legal) 4) Affirmative action in schools and jobs (My claim is that it should be abolished.) Bonus: dubs vs subs. (My claim would be that subs are superior).
Drug Legalization

Rebuttels1. I thank my opponent for his response.My opponent makes a good point. However, the solution to this problem is the same method that is currently being used to stop smoking and drinking. It is that we effectively regulate, tax, and to use media campaines to discourage kids from using them. This method is currently being used aagainst tobbacco use in New York [1]. New York has been experiencing record lows in smoking do to a fierce campain against it. The same technique can easily be used to attack drug use after legalizing, and can effectively decrease drug abuse and crime related to drug abuse.2. While I would concied that drugs are not a good thing, and they do take away the humans ability to act human. There is no good reason to keep them illegal on these grounds. Choice and self-ownership are rights that all people have. If people want to do that to themselves who are you to say they can't? If people smoke weed, drink, snort cocaine, etc in the privacy of their homes, it is not hurting anyone else,; so then people should be allowed to do so at their own risk.Also, if we regulate drugs, there will be a decrease of their use, just like smoking.Therefore, I would urge the voters to vote pro.[1] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...
Skyrim is better than Fallout 3.

Okay first of all, Fallout is just as customizable as fallout is when it comes to facial construction of your character. You may not be aware (because you may not have created that many accounts) that you may customize every facial detail, instead of using the 'factory setting' faces if you will. Fallout may not have as many races, but in the the setting of this game, it lies in the not so distant future. In Skirim, this lies in the far past, with more of a magical sort of theme. Fallout does not have this magical theme, so you have to remember that you can not argue against something that we do not see as a necessary theme in our game. Skirim sticks to a fantasy, and medieval gaming experience. While Fallout's gameplay is modern and more appealing to the majority of a crowd. For example, my sister plays fallout and understands it, she is only 12, also my father plays it and is 45. They may not understand skirim's complex background. For skirim you generally need a nerdy background for all the dark elves and what not. Fallout gives you a chance to really play the game with their leveling system. In skirim your character will be doing the same skills day after day depending on what his race is or particular skill set is. In fallout you can master the game in a sort of way. You can beat the game with any mix of skills, but in different ways depending on them. (this is especially true in New Vegas) In my opinion, the least aspect to argue about would be graphics, therefore i will not argue about them.
The supernatural does not exist

Thank you for the opening arguments. I begin with another definition of supernatural. Supernatural - unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. [1] Here are the rules of scientific method: "Ask a Question "Do Background Research "Construct a Hypothesis "Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment "Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion "Communicate Your Results [2] Notice this: "Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment." If the supernatural can't be explained by science or laws of nature, then how can we conduct experiments on its existence? Reasonably, we can't. Observation is one of the core principles for scientific method, but how do we observe something that is non existent? Observation - 1) a statement about something you have noticed : a comment or remark 2) the act of careful watching and listening : the activity of paying close attention to someone or something in order to get information 3) something you notice by watching and listening [3] For something to be visible, it must actually be there. It's impossible to witness magic, because it doesn't exist. You can't witness something that doesn't exist. So, in turn, observing, say, a ghost, isn't possible because ghosts. Contradictions from different sources and science has proved this. [4] So, in conclusion, we can't reasonably prove the existence of supernatural beings or forces. If a being defies all science, like my definition suggests, then how can we observe it? This means we have no substantial proof, as observation serves as the evidence for all science. If we have no way of recording it with science, we can't say it's there. Thank you and peace. Citations [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.sciencebuddies.org... [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4]http://m.livescience.com...
The supernatural does not exist

My resolution is that the supernatural exists. I am convinced that most believe that the supernatural cannot or does not exists, but in such belief are they found ignorant. I contend that by means of logic and rational, critical thinking about REALITY, one can surmise that supernatural things do exist. Supernatrual is defined as such : su"per"nat"u"ral G6;soV2;opərG2;naCH(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "a supernatural being" synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More noun 1. manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts. First round is acceptance. Accepting any irrational challengers.
Gay Marriage

True but, some people need to be shown the way. Their eyes are blindfolded with the curse of this world and its every Christian's job to spread the word of our Living GOD. I'm not here to judge people, I'm only here to show them the path to Jesus and he will show them the path to heaven. Jesus saith unto him," I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. I'm helping them find their way to Jesus. I am not referring to creating a Utopian society, GOD is. He wants us to be perfect and he knows we can't there is not one person on this condemned earth, that you could point to and say "He/She is perfect there is nothing wrong with him/her."Free will has it's flaws and this(our topic) is one of them.
Gay Marriage

Which brings me to my next point. The reason why I am pro for gay marriage is because of the free will God gave you. Yes, you should not spend your will on condemnation because you will later regret it in the future, but however how are we to judge other people? We are no where near God's wisdom and knowledge, and so how are we to quickly to critic this? I'm not saying that gay marriage is good, in fact I disapprove it, but allow it from free will. We have absolute no right over others, and we cannot judge others according to Matthew 7:1-5. You can argue that condemning gay marriage is good, but then you are referring to creating a Utopian society, and it NEVER worked in history. All in all, free will is especially important to people.
Gay Marriage

I understand that, Gay marriage is wrong, If they want their treasures now on earth they can have them but, it wont be as amazing as when you receive them in heaven, and the way to get to heaven is to follow the rules that were said in the Bible. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, GOD gave free will. This is what you want to spend this free will on?Condemnation? This "created equal" statement has been twisted in so many ways so it can fit in anyone's needs(or wants). You are supposed to love you for you but, what about loving GOD for GOD? You would do anything for the "love of your life" but, what would you do for GOD?Someone may be born attracted to the same sex but, it is wrong to act upon it. UNDER GOD indivisible...
Gay Marriage

This is a familiar statement said in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. " It states that every human, of every background deserve equal rights as fundamental rights in life. That means that the color of their skin, sex, or beliefs shouldn't matter about who they are. The importance is who you are in the inside. This brings us to the topic of Gay Marriage. Why can"t you love who you want and be who you are? For we have the freedom that to be who we are, because we as a nation, we make up make the United States. Because united we stand, we are who we are. You are allowed to love who you love, to be you.