BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gun control

Alright you have the right to bear arms yes. But there is no reason why we need access to every weapon available. Should we be allowed to own a shotgun yes, a pistol yes, a rifle, yes even a sniper sure, but why do you need a .50 caliber sniper rifle that marines use or why do you need ak-47s or ar-15s. You don't go hunting with those guns. Those guns are designed to kill people. And for the purpose of protection based on your states open carry laws or concealed weapon laws a pistol does the job as well. As for when your at home a shotgun will do just fine. I'm ok with gun control in the fact of not needing every weapon. Would you like a nuclear weapon as well. how about c4 is it ok if I can go down the street and buy c4. We need stricter laws on guns but not total control. We need to put in place harder background checks, mental health issues, age, and morality. Guns don't kill people kill and that is the problem. We can't trust people.
Those currently residing in the United States illegally ought to be granted amnesty.

Hah, I'm new to debates as well! Anyways heres a few of my reasons against it: 1. It's already overpopulated in the US so why should illegal imgrinents be allowed to just walk into the country without permission then immediatly be accepted? 2. Laws are laws and they broke them so why excuse them of their crime? 3. There might of been a reason they came to the country besides wanting to start a new, better life. 4. There are proberly thousands living illegally which would make it kinda hard to just round 'em all up then go "Oh, here you are now a part of our country. Congats! And good job of sneaking in too! We didn't even suspect you!" I eargely await a response!!! ;)
Those currently residing in the United States illegally ought to be granted amnesty.

Ok I'll make this short as it's my last round. If we just granted illegal imagrints amnesty there would be no point to a law against people entering this country. In fact, anyone could just walk into the country because then there would be no rule against them entering. And that is where the problem of terroists will get HUGE. And yes, our society is very messed up and our laws need polishing but the solution is not just excusing all the law-breakers. It may be easier but it's not right! That will just encourage more law-breaking which will not help at all. Would you excuse a murderer just because it is easier and cheaper? Well, in todays world that is what happens sometimes but that is besides the point. Releasing a bunch of murderers from punishment will not teach them a lesson so they are much more likely to commit the crime again. And though a murderer and a person entering a country illegally are very different crimes it does not escape the fact that they broke the law, and therefore, need to be punished. If these people want to live in a new country they need to learn the laws that not only bind them but also protect them. Also, they would then need to change the law which will cost tax-payers thousands as the government debates over it. Which I'm pretty sure would NOT please a lot of people. In fact, the only people that would be for anmestry are the illegally living people because I don't think society will appreciate watching other people break the law then get off scot-free. And though we will never come close to catching all the people that illegally enter, the cops do catch some. And changing the law will not help matters at all. So, laws are laws and there should be no exceptions to this. :D
Those currently residing in the United States illegally ought to be granted amnesty.

Let us start with the following principle: A country should never change a law if changing the law results in a person or group of people who broke the original law going unpunished. I oppose this idea for the following reasons: Laws may need to be changed for a variety of reasons, including the consequences of the law, the ineffectiveness of the law, the cost of enforcement, or changing circumstances. For this issue, illegal immigration, I assert, and have explained above, that all of these factors justify the need to change our immigration policy. So if we change our immigration policy, how important is it that we punish people who broke the law when it was on the books? A law that is poorly designed or poorly enforced potentially creates an environment where many people become law breakers, many more people than the government can handle. When this happens, it is important to step back and at least examine whether there may be elements of the law that can be refined, to decrease the amount of people who are classified as law breakers. When our economy was stronger, our economy, coupled with lax enforcement of our borders, was a magnet that attracted many people to our country. Add to the mix many employers who took the calculated risk that they could get away with hiring workers in this country illegally and you have a recipe for a policy failure. If it is unjust to grant amnesty to those who entered our country illegally, then it is equally unjust to not punish employers who hired these workers, knowingly violating the law. I suggest we step back and admit that our policy needs to be refined. Should we go out of our way to punish people just so that we can say we punished them? Does this preserve justice? Or does justice demand that we admit that there are times when our laws are out of step with reality? Immigration policy in the United States is surely out of touch with reality, as evidenced by the fact that over 11 million people are estimated to live in our county, having entered it illegally. How could we allow this many people to enter our country and to live in our country, in some cases, for decades? Because our laws are out of touch with the facts on the ground. Thank you for considering my arguments.
Those currently residing in the United States illegally ought to be granted amnesty.

I will now try to challenge what you have said... Wish me luck? :D In our country there are laws. If people could just break the law freely then be forgiven where would we be? For one, there would be no justice. This would lower each and every one of us to criminals. Because if you could do whatever you want, whether it is right or wrong, without the barrier of laws to stop us, you would do it. However, we do have laws that stop us from doing whatever we want. And though some break it they usually pay the price for it. So why should these people be treated special, when people that have lived in the same country their entire lives not have this same "special treatment." If anything, they should be the ones that are let off for crimes instead of the people that have only just started to live here. Another thing is, if they want to live in our country then they should have respect for its people, government, and laws. It's not starting out too well if the first thing a person does iin their new country is break the law! So no! That is not acceptable behaviour if they want to live in this country. And there is a reason that certain people need to sneak into a country. I'm not saying ALL illegal imagrints are bad people just that some are. Do we really need criminals from other countries sneaking into ours? And besides that, soon nobody would bother even sneak because they would have nothing to fear. They would know that they could just stroll into the US and start a new life without worry of being thrown back out or jailed. No, they would walk right in and instantly be forgiven for breaking a law. Who wouldn't love that? And what be the point of a law then? There would be no point to it if we just forgive all these law-breakers. Besides, would any of the imagrints actually believe that they were suddenly excused of what they did? If the US government or whatever suddenly innouced that all illegal imagrints were now scot-free, do you really think they are all going to come rushing out and publicly shout that they were illegally living in the country? Yeah right... I think that they would still live in the shadows, fearing a trick, a scam, to draw them all out. So basically that would be pointless and waste tons of money trying to decide to revoke the law or not. Thank you to my opponent for your support and understanding! (I guess)? I really didn't know how to respond but once I started writing I got some new ideas sooooo thanks! Anyways, look forward to your reply! XD Oh and sorry for the shortness of all this...
Intelligent Design Does Not Support Christianity

I assert that intelligent design does not support Christianity. The intelligent designer is definitely not the God of the Bible by any means. Intelligent Design instead supports deism and pantheism only (and other variations of these). Why Intelligent Design does not support Christianity: - Intelligent Design by definition is the idea that certain features of the Universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. [1] This does not justify the Christians tendency to think that this somehow proves that Genesis happened and that the designer is their god. Or that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days. None of these attributes can be assumed when the Intelligent Design argument is used. - The god of the Bible is described as a being who created the Universe, but the way he did so, contradicts science. The creation story of Genesis defies science and logic in so many ways [2], that it's difficult to imagine the Christian god as being intelligent. If the Christian god also created science, why would it be necessary for him to defy it? Could he not create science so that it is consistent with his actions? Why Intelligent Design supports deism and pantheism: - Deism is the belief that through reason, it can be postulated that a "Supreme Architect" exists and designed the universe. Deists do not assign any attributes to the designer and reject religious doctrines. Intelligent Design clearly, and precisely supports deism. - Pantheism (New Age version) is the belief that the Universe and God are one, and that the Universe is conscious. The Universe is the intelligent designer under this philosophy. Even though, generally, pantheism also entails that the Universe has existed forever, the Universe intelligently creates complex life and celestial bodies. Therefore, Intelligent Design supports pantheism. Also, let it be noted that deism and pantheism contradict Christianity. These philosophies are not accepted in the Christian faith, therefore, intelligent design does not support Christianity. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
It is pointless to talk about the Universes' creations

In this round, I will simply refute my Opponents rebuttals. "Now I believe in god, but what proof do you have that God made the Universe? " First off, this completely misses the point of my argument. My argument states that IF a God exists, it is more than beneficial to talk about him. (indeed it could mean your soul if you don't). However, for the sake of argument I will answer this as if it was a valid objection. There are excellent arguments, both for and against the existence of God. It's an important topic that must be discussed. "But for now theres no proof in this. Studying is alright ,but, for now there's no proof. The problem is people will always ask "Why? ". " -In this objection, my Opponent states that there is no proof for NOW. Meaning that he belives there will eventually be proof. If this is so, how can we ever prove it if we don't talk about it? "Clever. But it will never end and that time could be used for AIDS" This condradicts your objection to my second point where you state that there will eventually be proof, thus ending the debate. Also you've made no response to my quote. You also seem to not understand specialization among scientists. The scientists who theorize about things such as the big bang could never create a cure for AIDS because they don't have a medical degree.
It is pointless to talk about the Universes' creations

=Case=C1. It is good to speak of the Universes creation if a diety exists.This point is quite simple, all (that I know of) religions believe in an afterlife. In many religions, only those who believe in the higher power make it to the best afterlife such as heaven. So if a diety exists, it would certainly be beneficial to speak of the power that created the Universe, because that is the only way to salvation. Now I believe in god, but what proof do you have that God made the Universe?C2. Furthers scientific knowledge.While the new theories on the Universe's creation such as the big-bang, and the string theory, have yet to significantly impact us I contend that the more knowledge the better. A better understanding of our Universe and its creation can only be beneficial.But for now theres no proof in this. Studying is alright ,but, for now there's no proof. The problem is people will always ask "Why?".C3. Debating Universe creation is intellectually stimulating.How the universe was created is one of the questions most pondered by humanity. I'm sure we've all seen excellent writings and debates over the existence of God/big bang which would not exist if this topic was not discussed!Clever. But it will never end and that time could be used for AIDSBack to you, pro.
It is pointless to talk about the Universes' creations

It is certainly not pointless to speak of the Universes creation. My Opponent states that since the debate is likely to rage forever, there is no point in having it. Well I would like to show my Opponent, and the judges, this famous quote from Joseph Joubert[1]. "It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle it without debating it."=Case=C1. It is good to speak of the Universes creation if a diety exists.This point is quite simple, all (that I know of) religions believe in an afterlife. In many religions, only those who believe in the higher power make it to the best afterlife such as heaven. So if a diety exists, it would certainly be beneficial to speak of the power that created the Universe, because that is the only way to salvation. C2. Furthers scientific knowledge.While the new theories on the Universe's creation such as the big-bang, and the string theory, have yet to significantly impact us I contend that the more knowledge the better. A better understanding of our Universe and its creation can only be beneficial.C3. Debating Universe creation is intellectually stimulating.How the universe was created is one of the questions most pondered by humanity. I'm sure we've all seen excellent writings and debates over the existence of God/big bang which would not exist if this topic was not discussed!Back to you, pro.=Source=1. http://thinkexist.com...
Toxic Smoke

This round will be short and concise.Extend Contention I that governments do not have the moral authority to regulate cigarettes, and extend the impact that governmental over reach of power leads to tyranny and outweighs all other impacts. My opponent has conceded to this in her round Three; ballot goes to me by default. Her only response to my economy argument is: "It seems to me they are more concered with making money than the health of thier own people.", but my CII was clearly a supplementary point to the initial morality of CI. No response was made to the argument that tabacco prohibition would be as ineffective as the alcohol and drug prohibition of the past. Again, I win automatically based off this, it makes her disadvantages non unique.Her disadvantages are not really there anyway. She just asserts a lot, for instance"children shouldnt have to live and die with breathing diffivulites. " but she's never given a specific link between adults smoking cigarettes and this impact, any actual evidence or statistics, nor has she weighed it. Prefer my government over-reach impact. The winner of this debate is excessively clear.
Toxic Smoke

I will agree with you on the fact that my argument is based on mainly my emotional appeals and also that it is one's own choice to do whatever they please with their own bodies. BUT someone elese shouldnt have to suffer from the health isses casused by cigartte smoke in the air and children shouldnt have to live and die with breathing diffivulites. Yes the goverment make tons of tax money from the sale of cigaretts I will not argue with this. It seems to me they are more concered with making money than the health of thier own people.
Toxic Smoke

Thanks Con for a very quick response. I'll present my own case (although the 3K char. limit is tough), and then refute my opponents statements. Observation: I need not prove that Cigarettes are good, rather that they ought not be banned. I in fact agree whole heartedly that they are bad, but by what grounds does that warrant legal prohibitation? The BOP is all on my opponent, not only for advocating a change in the Status Quo, but for making the intial claim that Cigarettes ought to be banned.I will offer two contentions, one based off of a moral perspective, and the other a practical one. I. Bans on Cigarettes are an over-reach of Governmental powerI contend that the fundamental purpose of Governments is to defend the rights of their citizens. Thus we must look to what rights are, and what the government needs to do to protect them. In the case of substance abuse, bans are morally wrong because an individual is the sole owner of their own body, and thus the individual has the right to consume whatever they wish provided that they are not acting aggressively against others to consume said substances. Perhaps a case for the just prohibition of mind altering substances could be made because those reduce an individuals ability to rationalize, thus leading to irrational decisions that could harm others. In the case of Cigarettes, however, this is prima facie untrue; while Cigarettes may have certain minimal mind-altering characteristics, there has never been a death linked specifically to those characteristics. From this it follows that governmental restrictions on Cigarettes are a violation of personal autonomy, and therefore systematically unjust. The government respecting rights outweighs all other factors, because governments that throw away the rights of their citizens become oppressive and violate even more rights.II. A ban on Cigarettes would be impractical The U.S. department of Agriculture[1] estimates the total value of Tabacco farms in the United States to be $2,382,255,000. Tabacco prohibition takes all of this value and destroys it, and economically displaces these people. Further, there is absolutely no reason to beleive that Tabacco prohibition will have any affect--refer to the 1920's era prohibition or our currently failling Drug War to support this. More on this later (low on characters), I will now refute what my opponent has stated.My opponents argument consists of unsourced statistics and emotional appeals. You should look to my contention two, because there is no reason to believee that banning tabacco products will make any significant difference. I offer a turn on this argument: banning leads to adulterated substances which are significantly more dangerous than regulated substances such as cigarettes according to Drugscope[2].Thus you negate.1. http://www.ers.usda.gov...2. http://www.drugscope.org.uk...
Single-sex education is best for students

I will start my argument by saying I believe that co-educational facilities are more beneficial to the students. This view is because of what I see as a fundamental flaw in the argument for single-sex education. If pupils are withheld from interaction with the opposite sex, then when are they going to learn how to interact? Education is not just academic - school is a very important form of social education. If pupils spend their childhood primarily among their own sex, when they are released into the workplace, they will not understand the opposite sex and will not be able to work effectively with them. Warped views and male/female chauvinism are common among children, and co-education helps to combat this problem. You also raise the point of "distraction". In all single-sex schools I have heard of, there are teachers of the opposite sex. Why is this any different to pupils of the opposite sex in terms of distraction? Surely a 25 year old, handsome Geography teacher in an all girls school will produce the same reaction? (or vice-vera in an all boys school) Of course you could have the teachers the same sex as the pupils but wouldn't that leave the same problem as earlier... pupils' distorted views of the opposite sex from a lack of exposure? Finally, as regards to academic competition, it will always be there, between sexes or between pupils of the same sex. The point of academic competition is therefore irrelevant as single-sex education will not change this at all, as pupils naturally compare themselves to their peers regardless of sex.
Single-sex education is best for students

Id like to begin the debate by saying that I believe single-sex education is better for the students. My first point in the argument is that boys and girls distract each other from their education, especially in adolescence as their sexual and emotional sides are developing. The boys and girls will spend too much time attempting to impress or even sexually harassing each other in some cases (particularly boys toward girls). Academic competition between the sexes is unhealthy and only adds to unhappiness and anxiety among weaker students. Id like to conclude my argument with a quote from Tricia Kelleher, a school principal... 'Rather than girls defining themselves by their interests, they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of them".
Study Hall

Homework is usually done outside of school hours, so I presumed you meant after school, or at least after lessons during the student's free time. I do not see any alternative in this presumption; classes are for learning, not for completing homework. The only argument I need is that there are already places for a student to go and not be distracted. The library is the main example. The school does not need to waste money paying supervisors in a study hall when they are not necessary. There are over 120,000 public libraries in the USA alone, and schools often have their own private libraries for students to access. [1] [1] - http://www.ala.org...
Headphones are harmful

Ave!Deaths from Headphones'and also when they cross the road they died because of do not listening noise of surround.'I already responded to this argument in the last round I gave. See 'Deaths from headphones'.Headphones and Death'And happened a lot of cases like die, deafness e.t.c.'I have responded to this argument in the last round as well. Pro just repeats his arguments without addressing my responses to them.See 'Headphones and Hearing' as well as 'Deaths from headphones v.s. no deaths from headphones' for my response.Other Poins by Pro'Nowadays most of people listen to music by headphones and do not hear other people who says something and it is annoy other people.'To the contrary, headphone users are irritated when the people around them force them to remove their headphones and make conversation, when they would rather enjoy their music.'I do not say that people should not care headphones it is harmful and we should regulate voice of music when we listen if we care about our health.'I don't understand.Vale!
Headphones are harmful

Nowadays most of people listen to music by headphones and do not hear other people who says something and it is annoy other people. And happened a lot of cases like die, deafness e.t.c. when they use headphones and also when they cross the road they died because of do not listening noise of surround. I do not say that people should not care headphones it is harmful and we should regulate voice of music when we listen if we care about our health.