BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should relax restrictions on guns

Thank you for posting such a thoughtful argument.As you said 1. Back in the 1800's, nearly everyone owned guns and the crime rate was very low:-So in the past the crime rate was very low ,but now it has increased sandyhook school shooting itself is an example.Following is the proof that gun violence has increased:-1.More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country (USA).2. More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day.3.1/2 of them are between the ages of 18 and 35.4.1/3 of them are under the age of 20.5.Homicide is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year-olds.http://www.heedinggodscall.org...2.I'm not saying this is how it should be in America, but each citizen should at least learn the do's and dont's when it comes to gun ownership (perhaps in school). That way, Americans can live crime-free AND live by the civil liberties they were given. It's a logical compromise, we don't have to give up either the right to life or liberty.:- But some Americans not all, don't learn to live crime-free if anyone has hurt them they try to kill them.It has been said so many times not to take law in your hand,there are so many courts to give right justice but they don't learn, so for such people if we relax the restrictions they will become stronger and try to kill more people for their good. Thousands of people are killed intentionally or accidentally with guns each year. Some are the results of misplaced curiosity, while others are cases where the gun owner used poor gun handling procedures. Others tragically are the result of a poorly chosen target. Regardless of the reason behind these accidental deaths, had the gun been absent from the equation, the result would likely have been different. The same is true for homicide cases as without a gun, killing someone would have been far more difficult than pulling the trigger. By relaxing restrictions on guns it can easily turn a fist fight into a murder case.
We should relax restrictions on guns

You make a very intelligent and point-full case, the USA does have a very large crime problem. But here is why, the morals and handling of crime are changing. Back in the 1800's, nearly everyone owned guns and the crime rate was very low. Switzerland has a gun ownership rate of 97% and yet the lowest crime rate, there are hardly any murders or mass shootings because no one would want to have the risk of being murdered themselves by an armed, defensive citizen. They also have a good economy and mental health system, this may need to be a time where the USA should follow an example from a foreign power (sad but true). http://upload.wikimedia.org... Also I've noticed that you listed Israel as one of the lowest crime rating nations in the world, this is because nearly everyone owns a gun in that country. They also have compulsory military service (conscription) for each citizen, which teaches them on how to use guns correctly and respect them. http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm not saying this is how it should be in America, but each citizen should at least learn the do's and dont's when it comes to gun ownership (perhaps in school). That way, Americans can live crime-free AND live by the civil liberties they were given. It's a logical compromise, we don't have to give up either the right to life or liberty. Which brings me to my last lecture, about the school and movie theater shootings. Here's the point, it's tragic and should never have to happen again. A good plan would be to put an armed security guard at each school instead of imposing the removal of guns. And if people somehow can't get a gun via the black market, they will try and use knives or scissors. People will murder if they have the intention to no matter what they use, but that's why we need to prevent this by giving better mental health programs. From what it seems, gun control is inevitable in USA. But until the government realizes that we don't have a "gun problem" but we actually have an "idiot problem", organized crime will continue to rise and public services (ie police) won't be available to prevent the next school shooting. http://www.washingtonpost.com... It's up to you, the people reading this debate, to decide what's more responsible.
We should relax restrictions on guns

Sorry it shoud have been "they must not be relaxed" I apologize for the mistake.I would start my argument by defining gun.Gun-1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.2.any device for shooting something under pressure.http://dictionary.reference.com... So I have defined what is a gun.I would say that only the police,army,etc should be allowed to own guns.because of the recent attacks due to guns eg.the sandy hook school shooting.And i don't understand why do certain citizens of America need to own guns,since intelligence agencies such as FBI, CIA, Pentagon are experts to crack down the crimes which are related to guns and many others. http://www.washingtonpost.com...the above image is also the proof why gun rights should not be relaxed.I must say that there is no need of people using guns,if someone harasses a person and the person gets very angry and that person has a gun ,he may shoot the person who has harrased him and may haveto face some serious punishment.therfore i think there is no need people using guns.
We should relax restrictions on guns

Here are some things I agree with: 1. Universal background checks 2. The prevention of allowing guns in the hands of people with certain mental health conditions. Although we cant stop them, I agree that they shouldn't have guns as easily as others. 3. People kill people, not guns. If everyone was armed, there would be less crime because nobody would want to commit crime against an armed person. 4. There should be armed policemen at every school, he can stop the killer before he even kills any innocent lives. With that being said, gun restrictions can make everything worse because it would create a black market which would kill more people. The same thing happened with alcohol, marijuana, and prostitution. If there is something that people want, they will get it. Criminals don't follow laws, to anyone who simply says that it would make it harder for them to get it: this may be slightly true, but reality is they will find a way. For example, Switzerland has a population 97% that owns firearms yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world. Coincidence? Nope, there is a very low crime rate because no one wants to commit crime if they risk at being shot. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other

On to the value debate. First off my opponent believes that Freedom applies to the external world, but however they way I have it being used is that it is the indiviual's Freedom from corruption and human rights abuses and this leads to Nirvana. Being free from the evils of the world and having heavenly peace. We can see that Freedom from human rights abuses is more important than Justice, and when we really look at things Con's value supports the Pro, because we are supporting going in and intervening in other nations to prevent human rights abuses and we can see that we are doing the people of said nation Justice by interveening. So with that Pro should win by winning the Value debate since this is the esential part of LD debate.1. My opponet states that it doesn't state that we were justified in interveening in WW2, but come on people lets use common sense we needed to interveen in order to stop the genocide.2. My opponent has thrown out a counter example here, but since we invaded we have established a political system and the nation no longer has Sheria Law in that nation and they are not mass murdering Christians in their nation.3. Already refuted.4-5. probability, this isn't what this debate is about this debate is about weather or not we are justified not weather or not we are sucessful. So you can throw out this point. C2My opponent goes and is talking about our discriminiation against non-combatants, but yet again this is about weather or not we were justified not weather someone got killed. You want the truth there has been no war where someone hasn't been killed. That's just facts. So as you see here I win the value debate so therefore Pro should win this debate since the value portion of LD is the most important.
All Americans are mandated to stand for the pledge of allegiance (in school, ceremonies, etc.)

see what i dont understand, you keep talking about how you want people to feel for the country and you want people to really have some pride. you said that you think this will help promote some sort of idea that will continue onto our children. these were the ideas what came about when it was first started and was practicaly manditory. the pledge came about as a defence against communism (which i think i might have already made note of) the point is, we came up with it a while back and thought the same ideas you're talking about now. the fact that they didnt hold true, means that they're probably not going to hold true for the future, or for our own children. as the time goes by, you realize its not the same, you dont feel the same for your country, or its not manditory or nessisary for you to do so, you just dont want to. as that apethy grows for the pledge, lots of other loves about the country continue, such as watching or voting in primaries or elections. or talking about the current events or how you feel on almost any topic. the usage and deffence of one's constitutional rights, i feel, is much more important than any little prayer to show people that we dont have to be scared, to show that we're united. we're united for ourselfs i feel, as a people. we want our freedoms and we defend them our own way. this debate is all first amendment. regardless of whether or not everyone should stand for the pledge as a sign of respect to say the least, we cant force it because it doesnt infringe upon anyone else's rights. and as citizens (Which you clearly stated they were) you cant take that right away from them or pass any laws against it.
All Americans are mandated to stand for the pledge of allegiance (in school, ceremonies, etc.)

"to say that you must recite a prayer basically, each and every day, to prove your citizenship sounds a little absurd." First of all, this cannot be deemed as a prayer, because it has no religious affiliation whatsoever. To say that we are 'Under God' is not actually a connotation of religion, but rather a general encompassing of all sects and religions, or lack thereof under one unified nation. The pledge is meant to make people feel connected as one, not isolated or divided. I think most people are missing the true meaning of what the Pledge Of Allegiance is. It is a pledge for your allegiance to the country that provides what you need to sustain life, it is the country where you reside and are making a name for yourself, however much you may love or hate it. Either way, it is still the country in which you live and the least you could do it pledge your allegiance, however temporary, to it. "we cant go telling people they're not citizens for not reciting the pledge when we give free hand outs" I'm not saying anything about revoking citizenship. However, there are millions of people dying to become citizens of the United States that can't became of immigrant specifications and regulations, and how is it fair that the people who are lucky enough to be granted this citizenship are taking it for granted by not even having the common decency to STAND for the pledge? I'm not being unreasonable hear, and, god forbid asking them to recite the pledge. I understand that some people have moral disagreements with what the Pledge actually says. But standing is another thing. Standing is just a symbol that, as a citizen of a free nation, you are willing to sacrifice some for the good of the country. That is what America is, or is supposed to be. "The fact that they pledge each day to the country and its plight, that they'll do what they must to make it better is a lie" It is this attitude exactly that causes more people to lapse into a mindset of apathy. If the pledge is optional, it will eventually die out and no one will have any motivation. It is a symbol, yes, and however powerful or not powerful it has become, it is still there to serve it's purpose. That is a principle, the principle of loyalty. The principle of pledging to a country whose purpose was to provide for the people, by the people. As the preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." posï¿½terï¿½iï¿½ty (p-str-t) n. 1. Future generations If not for ourselves, let us do it for the future of America.
All Americans are mandated to stand for the pledge of allegiance (in school, ceremonies, etc.)

"On the contrary, in order to even be granted all of these rights and freedoms that come with our country, you must show some degree of loyalty." with that idea, the degree of this country has been reduced to some sort of cult. to say that you must recite a prayer basically, each and every day, to prove your citizenship sounds a little absurd. we cant go telling people they're not citizens for not reciting the pledge when we give free hand outs. we give welfare to poor citizens who wont ever get off it. unemployment is one thing, people who are not unproductive but down on their luck and looking for a new job (at a highly reduced rate mind you) should be commended and helped along. People who have been on welfare for their entire working career and possibly before hand, how can we say its fair? they're drains on the economy, and should be kept from being citizens. The fact that they pledge each day to the country and its plight, that they'll do what they must to make it better is a lie. by that reality, people from other countries that just manage to get in, not even necessarily under legal conditions, can make the argument for it as well... its far to lax. there are exams and ways to get to be a citizen. there are far to manny ways to prove that there are manny citizens who don't believe in the american way, working hard to get to the top. a society where they could move up and down with our own social mobility, making their own way. the drawing up of a pledge each day was just to spot out spies during the red scare. to have it today is sort of absurd... people have sort of elevated it to a new level. for those who get something from it, some sort of spiritual way, its good. but for those who don't want to because they don't have to, because as their views go, its not important. They have the right to say no. They have the right to stay seated.
All Americans are mandated to stand for the pledge of allegiance (in school, ceremonies, etc.)

"And because we're in america, doesn't that mean right there that we as a people are served with the right to freedom of speech and expression?" On the contrary, in order to even be granted all of these rights and freedoms that come with our country, you must show some degree of loyalty. The pledge is a simple verse that symbolizes a belief in a nation free and united, founded on revolutionary Democratic ideals and freedom of choice. "I agree that the people have a right to choose what they want to do to represent themselves and their believing in their country" As I said, this freedom does come at a small price, and that is reciprocation in that the citizens themselves support America as America supports them in their needs and wants. It is quite selfish and hypocritical to reap all the benefits of being an America, and then deny the respect that the flag of your country deserves.
All Americans are mandated to stand for the pledge of allegiance (in school, ceremonies, etc.)

i agree that people should try and get together and work against the "war on terror." But you made a very good point right off the bat. "We're in America, are we not?" And because we're in america, doesn't that mean right there that we as a people are served with the right to freedom of speech and expression? I agree that the people have a right to choose what they want to do to represent themselves and their believing in their country. so long as they're not blatantly telling everyone "the pledge is stupid, you shouldn't do it, you're an idiot/follower/tool etc." they should maintain their first amendment right to doing as they want how they want. In short. As "Un-American" as it may seem, the people have the right by the first amendment of Constitution, weather it be by staying seated or by standing for it, people have rights to hear the pledge and do what they want.
All Americans are mandated to stand for the pledge of allegiance (in school, ceremonies, etc.)

We're in America, are we not? The least one can do as a citizen, or resident, or immigrant to the United States is raise themselves out of their seats for the Pledge of Allegiance. While I think it should be mandatory to recite the pledge, I understand not everyone believes in what it says (God, One nation, etc.) But to not even give the flag any respect is especially heinous, especially in today's society where patriotism is one of the only things we have to hold our country together in the so-called "War on Terror"
Respect needs to be earned, it is not deserved.

The grammatical way I used 'inherently' meant the respect was inherently deserved by the warningof it, not that it was inherent prior or independent of the earning.It must be earned before it is deserved? That's impossible. Once its earned, as in that very millisecond, it is instanteneously or rather simultaneously deserved. What you mean to say si that one should work towards earning it if they then want to deserve it. Until they've finished working otwards it, they haven't earned it and once they've earned it, they've already deserved it so it's a catch-22 scenario where Con wins either way.The concept of autimatically deserving something was never what your referred to in Round 1 nor in your resolution. Do not reword reoslutions in the last round to get a win because that's never going to work.
Respect needs to be earned, it is not deserved.

You said, quote, "If you earn something, you inherently deserve it. There is no possible way to say one without the other." That's were "inherently" came up. And yes, I agree with you, If you earned something, than u deserve it. The two go hand in hand there is no doubt about it, you cant have one with out the other. My point is respect must be earned before it is deserved. Having it earned is the key. Respect in not automatically deserved. Of course if one earned it than it is deserved and at the point if it is deserved you have earned it by your actions in the past.
Respect needs to be earned, it is not deserved.

Pro added the word 'inherently'. This was neither in the resolution nor in the Round 1. This is not about inheritly deserving respect, this is simply about deserving it or earning which I explain cannot be done indepdendent of the other.Pro has yet to epxlain how one can be done without the other.If you earned it, you deserve it.If you deserve it, then you earned it.
Barack Obama is not a Christian. He is a Muslim.

There seems to be something of a disconnect between who Egyptians think America is supporting, and who America actually is supporting in Cairo. In the U.S., story after story has been written about how the Obama Administration has bent over backwards not to call this latest change in government a "coup" and has been relatively muted in its reaction to the deaths of so many civilians " upwards of 1,000 in the last week alone. Yet Egyptians remain convinced that President Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood and deposed President Mohamed Morsi. At a lunch at the Egyptian Ambassador"s residence on Thursday, Dr. Mohamed Abou El-Ghar, head of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, bluntly warned a small gathering of journalists and policy wonks that he fears, "America is losing Egypt"There is a very strong perception that they are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and they are against other parties," he said. The perception began even before the Egyptians elected Morsi, Abou el-Ghar said, when Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and 2008 GOP presidential nominee, met with members of the Muslin Brotherhood in February 2012 but not representatives from competing parties. The headlines were: U.S. Warms to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was furthered when U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson criticized Egypt"s military for interfering in July when opponents deposed Morsi. That view has become more widespread since, with the Pentagon"s decision to defer delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Egypt and the Administration"s review of aid to Cairo. The latest evidence of Obama"s purported proclivity towards the Brotherhood came in Thursday"s State Department briefing, which has made headlines in Egypt. In it, spokesman Jen Psaki says that the choice to detain of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is an "internal Egyptian legal matter," but in the next breath calls for the release of Morsi, who is accused of many serious crimes. Egyptians took this as further evidence that America is intervening on behalf of the Brotherhood still: swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/does-obama-support-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-egypt
Barack Obama is not a Christian. He is a Muslim.

It would indeed be very strange if Barack Obama wouldn't be a Christian, given that he has himself said to be one on numerous occassions. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Obviously, being a protestant Christian he also attends church services. Obama at Shiloh Baptist Church (Washington DC): Also before he became President, just as one example, at one time he was a community organisor for the Developing Communities Project a catholic community-organisation project in Roseland. All of these would be very strange indeed if Barack Obama was not a Christian.
Children complain about their age being judged, but then they use age restriction like a hypocrite.

A) You're annoying. You cannot read context. Being polite doesn't mean anything in a world that is built on psychopaths and political correctness. Double standards. Hypocrisies. Excuses and Lies. Want to try me? I will destroy your social engineered personality. B) Don't accept if you're not prone to intellectual conversing. C) Oh wow, you have been arguing for a long time and you can't even figure out the context of my argument. Look at all the time time you have wasted! Oh, there's plenty of need. You act like I'm the bad guy for expressing my emotions, while you sound like a dreadful machine. Grow up.
Children complain about their age being judged, but then they use age restriction like a hypocrite.

There are a few things I need you to understand:: a) I have been civil and polite since the beginning of this debate so I urge you to return the favour. b) Since I have no prior understanding of your argument topic, I will not pursue this discussion further. c) I have been debating for a long time and the most important part of a debate is understanding the topic and then making your arguments. Your topic, as I previously mentioned was not worded clearly which is why I asked for a clarification. I would advise you not to take matters so personally and get unnecessarily defensive. There is no need. Thank you for your time.
Children complain about their age being judged, but then they use age restriction like a hypocrite.

Did you not understand what I said? Children on here. C.H.I.L.D.R.E.N on here C.O.M.P.L.A.I.N about how people judge them based on their age. The S.A.M.E children then turn around and use age restrictions on their debates so people cannot debate unless they reach the limit. My, you guys are the most stupidest people on this planet. I never come across anyone as colloquially illiterate as you - and not to mention how often.