BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
American Citizens Should Have Their Firearms Removed

You accepted this debate! That means that you must defend your side! Anyone reading this, Do you see what's happening? I just posted my arguments, And rather than try to refute them, My opponent literally posted one sentence about why he wasn't even going to debate. You accepted this debate. You agreed to the requirements of this debate, So you must naturally prove your side of this debate. This isn't rocket science! Just do your job in this debate! This is very cowardly debate style. You're not even debating me! Please answer my arguments! Is that such an unreasonable demand? If you read the terms when you accepted this debate, You would have seen that it said you job is to prove the pro side of this debate. IF you cannot do that, Just admit defeat.
American Citizens Should Have Their Firearms Removed

Something that you are obviously ignoring is that you accepted the challenge to defend an absolute! By accepting this challenge, You must defend your side or you lose. Please actually start doing that, Or just give up and forfeit. Next, We aren't talking about the military. We are talking about the everyday citizen. I agree that criminals should not be allowed to possess guns! That's just obvious! But you have to prove that the everyday citizen should not have firearms. You yourself said that guns themselves are bad in the poll you voted on, So please start defending this view. If you can't, Please retract the statement, Admit that you were wrong, And we'll forget about it. Your only other option is to debate this thing out. Stop stalling and defend your view, Or forfeit. Finally, The reason why we have certain larger guns, Such as assault rifles, Is to protect us from government tyranny. This was one of the main purposes behind the second amendment. Please answer this. Back to you!
American Citizens Should Have Their Firearms Removed

To argume an absolute is pointless and absurd, What would be the point of taking all fire arms from people, Would that include the military and police, Farmers, Hunters, Plinkers? I don't see the logic. . That said there are many in this nation who should be diisarmed and harsh laws need to be put in pace to do that. The felon the drug addict the mentally ill, Wife beaters drunks, People who don't pay their traffic tickets speed in their cars, The reckless, To make this absolute is illogical but there are many people that present a good reason to be deprived of armsalso there are certain types of guns people all private citizens should be prohibited from having. You can't reace a ferrari on the street, There are some cars so powerful and fast it is illegal for civilians to drive them on a road, By the same logic some guns have no rational purpose in the civilian world, And those guns should be totally removed or at least grandfathered.
Hillary Clinton should be in prison.

Hillary Clinton should not be in jail. Hillary has worked hard all her life to be President, and now this is her opportunity. She is, in this election cycle, the only viable candidate for the office of the President. Therefore, Hillary Clinton should not be put in jail, even if she has committed a crime because it would be worst for the country for her to be put in jail than it would be for Donald Trump to be President. Second, Hillary Clinton is part of the Washington establishment. She and her family have been in involved in American politics for decades. As a result, and in accordance with American tradition, she and her family are not responsible for any actions they take in office. Hillary simply cannot go to jail, ever: she and her family are above the law, no matter what they do, or what they say. It is simply Hillary's turn to be President, and nothing can ever stand in her way. This is how America works, whether you like or not.
Hillary Clinton should be in prison.

The affirmative in this debate has argued that Hillary Clinton should go to jail because she committed an immoral act. This debate ultimately comes down to how much you trust your institutions. If you believe that Hillary Clinton got away with committing a criminal act when others in her place would've been convicted, then you have to concede that the justice system of the United States is unjust and corrupt; and that Hillary Clinton is in fact above the law. Second, going to 'jail' is a specific punishment that we prescribe in the case of persons who have committed criminal offences. Immoral behaviour doesn't necessarily lead to criminal behaviour. She might have acted inappropriately but and made a mistake but this is a far cry from committing a criminal offence. These two distinctions must be made. Finally, as state above, the affirmative must, if he/she is to prove his/her case, assert that the Hillary Clinton evaded justice and was given special treatment by the judicial authorities of the United States. If the affirmative makes this conclusion, then they can win the debate; otherwise, Hillary Clinton was not convicted of an criminal offence. That's it.
Hillary Clinton should be in prison.

My opponent stated "It doesn't matter if her actions was immoral or not; this is not the topic of this Debate." Well, that is the topic. Her immoral actions were illegal. They were the same immoral actions committed by other Americans who got convicted. Which is why she should be convicted, ergo she should go to prison. In this case the lack of conviction and lack of a prison sentence go hand in hand. My opponents also stated "People aren't imprisoned for behaving immorally or unethically, unless they have committed a criminal offence." Once again, Hillary Clinton's immoral actions are what led to her committing a criminal offence. She mishandled classified materials by storing them improperly and handing them over to people who did not have the appropriate security clearance. And once again, saying the system is corrupt, does not excuse the fact of what should happen or not whether it is true or not. Actually, stating the system is corrupt would only help prove my point. The definition of corrupt is [1] "to cause (someone or something) to become dishonest, immoral, etc.". So back to that moral compass we all have. If the system is corrupt, that further proves my point that she should be in prison. Why would we want to trust in a corrupt system to bring justice when it is very much overdue? Nobody SHOULD be above the law. Everybody SHOULD be held accountable for their actions. Hillary Clinton SHOULD be in prison. In conclusion, this whole debate is based off of the fact that Hillary Clinton did not properly handle classified information. Whether she was convicted of it or not, we all know it to be true.[2] It has been proven that Hillary Clinton sent classified emails from an unclassified server and physically handed classified materials to people who did not have the appropriate clearance. She often stated that she did not know the information was classified, but that should not excuse her actions. That is similar to someone committing murder, and claiming they didn't know murder was illegal. Should that give them a legal pass? No. This debate is not about why Hillary Clinton did not go to prison. It is about should she have gone to prison. The answer is yes. Mishandling classified information is a Federal offense. Vote Pro! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.wsj.com... *side note to augcaesarustus. Thanks for the debate! This has been a lot of fun and you had some pretty decent points :)
Hillary Clinton should be in prison.

The topic of this Debate is "Hillary should be in prison." The only criteria that determines if a person should be in prison if he or she has been 'legally' convicted of criminal activity. It doesn't matter if her actions was immoral or not; this is not the topic of this Debate. All of the instances that you have quoted are those of persons who have been convicted by law and tried for breaking the law. That's it. Nothing else matters. People aren't imprisoned for behaving immorally or unethically, unless they have committed a criminal offence. If you believe that Hillary should be in prison, and she isn't, then the only conclusion that you can reach is to assert that the system is corrupt, and that she was let off because of who she is. Otherwise, she wasn't convicted, ergo she shouldn't be in prison.
Hillary Clinton should be in prison.

Whether the system is corrupt or not, we all have a moral compass. We all know the difference between right and wrong, what should be the outcome of a chain of events, and what shouldn't be the outcome. [1] Since 2008, several Americans have been charged with mishandling classified information and materials. These are just some of them. Shamai Leibowits is a former FBI contract Hebrew-English translator. He was charged for knowingly and willfully disclosing to an unauthorized person five FBI documents classified at the 'secret' level that contained classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison. Stephen Jin-Woo Kim is a former State Department contractor. He was charged with illegally disclosing national defense information to someone in the media. He was sentenced to 13 months in prison. Chelsea Manning (at the time Bradley Manning) is a former Army Private First Class. Manning was charged with multiple violations of the Espionage Act, including disclosing U.S. government information to WikiLeaks. [2] Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Jeffrey Sterling is a former CIA employee. He disclosed information about Iran's nuclear program to a New York Times reporter. [3] He was sentenced to 42 months in prison. John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer. He was charges in 2012 for sharing with a freelance writer the name of an undercover CIA agent who was working at the time in the CIA"s interrogation program. [4] He was sentenced to 30 months in prison. James Hitseleberger is a former Navy linguist contractor He was charged with retaining classified information and shipping it back to Stanford University. One report said the classified documents contained sensitive information about troop positions, gaps in U.S. intelligence and commanders' travel plans. [5] He was sentenced to one year in prison. Edward Snowden is a former National Security Agency contractor. He disclosed the existence of U.S. government surveillance programs to The Guardian and The Washington Post. He is awaiting his prison sentence. All these American have done the same thing Hillary Clinton has done. All of them to a different extent, but never the less. They have all mishandled classified information and/or materials. The only difference is, they have gone to prison, which is why she should go to prison. [1] http://america.aljazeera.com... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.usnews.com... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [5] http://www.salon.com...
Hillary Clinton should be in prison.

In all seriousness, this debate hinges on two points. First, if she is guilty and hasn't been sent to prison, then detractors may argue that the 'system is rigged' in favour of Clinton. Whilst this isn't the direct premise of your argument, there must be an indirect link to this point of view. The detractors' view therefore is implying that the institutions of the United States are so corrupt and are ultimately undemocratic to the extent that a person like Hillary Clinton can get away with committing a serious crime. If this is the case, then I do not have a solution for this problem. On the other hand, if one believes that the institutions of the United States are strong and aren't corrupt, then the only conclusion that one can lead to is that she is NOT guilty. I cannot see a third option here: either you believe that the system is corrupt and that SOME people in the US are actually above the law; or that if the system isn't corrupt, then ergo she is not guilty.
Hillary Clinton should be in prison.

First I should point out that round one was the acceptance round. Con posted their argument one round too early. This now changes the structure of the debate to: round one being initial argument, round two being rebuttal, round three being more rebuttal, and finally round four being the conclusion. My opponent is correct that Hillary Clinton has worked hard to become a presidential candidate. This is in fact her opportunity. I would not say she is the only viable candidate, but that is a matter of opinion and a complete separate debate in its own. However, nobody can argue the fact that she and her family have been in politics for many years. However, being a political figurehead does not exempt anyone from the law. When my opponent said "she and her family are not responsible for any actions they take in office", they were very incorrect to say the least. As Theodore Roosevelt once said. [1] "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.". In the email scandal alone, Hillary Clinton broke at least three State Department rules and Federal laws[2&3]: First- Mishandling Classified Information: Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code. These laws make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email Second- Violation of the Federal Records Acts of 2009: Section 1236.22 of the 2009 of the NARA. This law states [3] "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system." Third- Violation of her Non-Disclosure Agreement: Section 7. Her NDA for being Secretary of State stated she must "agree to return any classified information" she gained access to, and further agreed that "failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code." see first violation. Not only should she be in prison, if she gets elected, she has already disqualified herself. According to the Constitution in Article Two, Section Four [4] "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." [1] http://www.brainyquote.com... [2] http://ijr.com... [3] https://gop.com... [4] http://www.usconstitution.net...
95-96 Chicago Bulls OVER the 15-16 Golden State Warriors

The 1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team, nicknamed the "Dream Team", was the first American Olympic team to feature active NBA players. It was described by American journalists as the greatest sports team ever assembled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Larry Bird http://youtu.be... -- My opponent suggests that the 1995-1996 Bulls had "watered down" competition. I must admit, I snickered on that one. Some prominant players in the NBA during the 95-96 campaign: Charles Barkley Magic Johnson Gary Payton Isiah Thomas Shawn Kemp Karl Malone Patrick Ewing David Robinson John Stockton Hakeem Olajuwon Reggie Miller Clyde Drexler Joe Dumars Mitch Richmond Tim Hardaway Grant Hill Alonzo Mourning Penny Hardaway Latrell Sprewell Dikembo Mutombo Larry Johnson Shaquille O'neil "Larry Bird says Jordan best ever" Best,” said Bird. “Never seen anyone like him. Unlike anyone I’ve ever seen. Phenomenal. One of a kind.” “One of a kind,” he repeated. “That’s what I mean about the league. With guys like him coming in from college year after year, we just can’t help but get a better image, better crowds, better TV ratings. He’s the best. Ever.” uproxx.com/dimemag/larry-bird-called-rookie-michael-jordan-the-best-ever ----- Reggie Miller on talking trash to M.J. http://youtu.be... ----- In his first game in Madison Square Garden against the New York Knicks, Jordan received a prolonged standing ovation,[25] a rarity for an opposing player. After Jordan scored a playoff record 63 points against the Boston Celtics on April 20, 1986, Celtics star Larry Bird described him as "God disguised as Michael Jordan." https://en.m.wikipedia.org... ----- The obvious names when thinking of the Bulls is Pippen and Jordan. When one thinks of the current warriors they could initially think of Stephen Curry and his 3 point shooting as a possible warrior advantage. Not so fast. Never forget Steve Kerr. Here is a 3 point comparison of Kerr vs. Curry. --Career stats-- #1 Steve Kerr: .4540% #2 Stephen Curry: .4427% http://www.basketball-reference.com... ----- The "UnstoppaBulls" they were named. What set them apart? The whole team was nasty... Steve Kerr (Guard, 3 point specialist) http://youtu.be... Tony Kukoc (6'11 235) http://youtu.be... Dennis Rodman (defensive and rebounding juggernaut) http://youtu.be... Scotty Pippen (6'8 228) http://youtu.be... Michael Jordan (6'6 215) http://youtu.be... ----- "Michael Jordan The Best Defender in the Game" http://youtu.be... -- Dennis Rodman -Ranked #48 on the 2009 revision of SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-time -2-time NBA All-Star: 1990, 1992 2-time NBA Defensive Player of the Year: 1990, 1991 Consecutive seasons leading the league in rebounding: 7 (1991–92-1997–98) -- "Passion of the game" http://youtu.be... "Who is the best ever?" http://youtu.be...
95-96 Chicago Bulls OVER the 15-16 Golden State Warriors

First of all, Malone's first name is spelled Karl, not Carl, and you also referred to both him and Patrick Ewing as "leaders of championship teams," though neither won a ring in their playing days. Secondly, the credentials matter not because we are simply debating a 7 game series, not whether or not Michael is better than Curry or if Phil is better than Kerr. As a matter of fact, the Warriors were 39-4 WITH AN INTERIM COACH! That is unheard of in the NBA even with their head coach. Also, the Bulls' competition was extremely watered down, considering Magic and Bird had recently retired and the only real competition Chicago had was the Jazz, a team that would be 3rd in the West this year. As great as Jordan, Scottie, and Rodman were, I'll take the depth any day. Again, if this were a game of 3-on-3, give me the Bulls... But it's not. A 5-on-5, 12 player game is a totally different deal. Draymond Green is a top 10 player in the NBA, and Andrew Bogut is playing the best basketball of his life. When you add in Andre Iguodala and Harrison Barnes to the Splash Bros, you have what I consider an unstoppable team. Everything they do is effortless and effective, and Kerr (who was a better GM than player, better commentator than GM, and better coach than commentator) seems to be getting better at this whole basketball thing with age. The depth, however, is possibly the biggest reason the Warriors would defeat the legendary Bulls team. Please don't even try to tell me that the Bulls second team is even close to Golden State's 96 Chicago Bulls 2nd Unit PG-Steve Kerr SG-Jed Buechler SF-Toni Kukoc PF-Dickey Simpkins C-Bill Wennington 16 Golden State Warriors 2nd Unit PG-Shaun Livingston SG-Leandro Barbosa SF-Andre Iguodala PF-Marreese Speights C-Festus Ezeli Of course this is not a completely new debate. CBS writer Zach Harper simulated the match on NBA 2K16, and the Warriors won 130-104 AT THE UNITED CENTER behind ball-hogging Jordan's 51
95-96 Chicago Bulls OVER the 15-16 Golden State Warriors

Yes, the Bulls had Jordan, as well as Pippen and Rodman, but in a 7 game series, there is no team in NBA history that could defeat the streaking Warriors. Curry is at the top of his game, and the depth exhibited by them is unmatched by any team since possibly the 72 Knicks. This is my first debate and I am looking forward to discussing this topic with my opponent.
Should Scientist test products on animals

I will be arguing against the testing of products on animals and the rules are; 1. Opponent must have a decent vocabulary and a relative experience in debating. 2. NO personal insults 3. Don't muck around, please. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments, no rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal and conclusion. [Note: I am trying to improve my persuasive writing for high school and my English is relatively mediocre-above average. So please don't go full on me and many of these points made by me may not necessarily mine.]
Strong Evidence of God's Existence

Just to be perfectly clear, I am NOT arguing that I have 100% proof that God exists. It should be clear to everybody that there is just no 100% proof either way. It would be naive and arrogant to say otherwise. I will be arguing that I have evidence (or grounds for belief) of the existence of a supreme being or intelligence. Con's argument will be to discredit my evidence. Definitions Evidence- Grounds for belief. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] God- A supreme being or intelligence. RULES I can't stand people who don't respect a persons beliefs. There will be no name calling, 'constructive criticism', or rude remarks in the body of the debate. If you feel it is necessary to make any of those remarks, please take it to the comment section. Stay professional and courteous at all times. You will have 48 hours to respond with a 5,000 character argument. Have fun and keep an open mind. STRUCTURE Round 1- Introductions and Debate Acceptance *Feel free to introduce yourself as a person, and quickly describe why you feel you would be a credible person to argue this debate. Round 2- Opening Arguments Round 3- Main Arguments/Rebuttals Round 4- Closing Arguments/Rebuttals INTRODUCTION My History- I first joined this site about three years ago and participated in about 8 religious debates. After those debates I realized I was very young, immature, and I was very bias and closed minded about my arguments. I left this site for two years and just recently returned. I currently work for Xerox Corporation as a Strategic Account Manager, and I have been in the Army reserves for over 4 years. My Religion- I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have graduated a 4 year seminary institution course. I have spent many years searching for, and debating the existence of a God. Why This Debate- I believe in years of studying the topic I have finally found credible evidence of God's existence. I am exited to put this evidence to the test and see what kind of arguments a Con would come up with. Good luck!
Strong Evidence of God's Existence

My opponent spend his whole last round simply outlining the argument he is going to make, but he hasn't outlined this argument yet. Now, I would agree that something occurring with such a low probability probably isn't the case (like throwing cards in the air and having them land making a house of cards by chance). However, my opponent has not defended the notion that if things don't come together by chance, that means that it is due to intelligence. This assumes a dichotomy between:Chance&IntelligenceHowever, why think those are the only two options? This just seems like an argument from ignorance in the works. Anyway, since my opponent did not present an argument yet which is supposed to be strong evidence for God's existence, I will wait until the argument arrives.