BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gun rights

in my opponents last speech he claims that he has not dropped the supreme court argument but if you look at the last 3 rounds the only time my opponent talks about the supreme court is when I mention it in my third round speech second thought I have only used one source I have only needed one source to make my point that all of the crime that is gun related is not justified by the second amendment, not to mention that the definitions of the 2nd amendment was agreed upon by both parties, so in my opponents first speech when he states that "guns lower crime" I have shown that the crime is not under the second amendment and therefore I have won the argument that the second amendment will lower the amount of gun related violence. third however much "visual proof" that my opponent provides I have been able to show and prove for now 3 rounds that the crime is not justified by the 2nd amendment because the gun related violence that claimed the lives of 1 million Americans (which can be found in my first speech and is cited) is not protecting the country from a forgien invader or the government so in conclusion I have won this debate for the reason that my opponent in his last 3 speeches has done nothing to argue his point further than posting links to unreliable sources and others while I have shown time and time again that all of the evidence that my opponent has provided that is credible, strengthens my arguments by using the definition of the 2nd amendment that we both agree upon and the statistics that I have cited shows that my opponent has dropped all of his arguments as well as his inability to argue my points clearly shows that I have won all of my arguments so therefore I have won this debate THANK YOU!
gun rights

Further more my last comment was reasonable because if you can claim my resources are bad ( which they aren't ) then I believe its fair to say 'face the facts' in other words. secondly: I have not dropped the supreme court ruling, and if you want me to argue then i will. Here is something from the Washington post: . http://www.washingtonpost.com... it shows the legal rights to guns. I am still debating, you can debate on the defensive you know. further more yes you cited one thing, that didn't prove a point. You need numbers that show differences in statistics aka crime going up or down. So i am showing visual proof. Oh and speak about non debating your claiming you won and its not over until it's over. Further more you are doing similar things that you accuse of. You are debating defensively like me in round 3, the only difference is that you aren't using facts to disable my argument, a. k. a like www. senate. gov. Now i will say something else, When guns where illegalized murder did go down 3%. That's an O. K. improvement. But Robbery rose by approximately 50%, and unarmed robbery by 36%. Here is more proof that the English have a higher crime rate :. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Now argue that all my resources are reputable, and the facts are clear to my eyes, but this differs from person to person.
gun rights

First I do enjoy the debating but the comments at the end of your last speech is uncalled for and unappreciated so thank you for not doing that. secondly if you refer to my first speech I did site my sources that being the NRA so the claim that I did not site sources is my opponent not understanding what has been said. third the sources that my opponent reposted were better sources but they all say the same thing that there has been a drop in the amount of gun related violence and then there is an upsurge but like I have stated before that the gun violence is not the public protecting itself but the public hurting the public and with the defining points of the 2nd amendment which my opponent agrees upon my point is still relevant and is still a point that my opponent has failed to argue in now two rounds and finally my opponent has completely dropped their argument of the supreme court ruling that the right to bear arms is independent to the the bill of rights which shows that my opponent has given up in this debate because they have not been able to effectively argue either for their points or against mine clearly shows that I am again winning this debate
gun rights

Ok, this means nothing it is reliable. Jon R Lott has only economics degrees but he has the highest rated pro gun book in the world, and it is quote reliable. Lott called almost every district in the country to see their crime rates, and these graphs are really similar to Lotts. You and I probably don't have degrees in this either yet we are talking about it in great detail. Plus non of your sources are cited. Also ma I add that the site has other sites cited on this page. http://www.law.cornell.edu... here's one of them, highly reputable. http://www.yale.edu...... Another one look yes it says Yale. http://www.washingtonpost.com...... yes it says Washington post, also reputable. http://www.senate.gov... and thats says Senate! Our own government so have fun beating Yale scholars or the government.
gun rights

though my opponents last argument they talk about how the supreme court ruled that the right to bear arms is independent of the bill of rights but if you look to the pro's first speech in the first round their last sentence states " So, that being said, there are benefits for guns, and its my legal rights!" and looking at that we can only assume that they are referring to the bill of rights and therefore my opponent in contradicting themselves by agreeing by the supreme court by saying that it is independent from the bill of rights after they state that the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. furthermore my opponent had nothing to say against my observations of the the wording of the 2nd amendment and since they had the opportunity to provide a counter definition and did not we have to use the definition that I gave. so yes our founding fathers loved guns it is what won this country we call the USA but my point about the 2nd amendment talking about having guns to protect our country still stance. Secondly when you look at the links that my opponent provided, you will see that all of their articles are from justfacts.com and after looking into the legitimacy of this source and after meer minutes of research I have found out that their researcher does have an collage education but that is in engineering and therefore my opponents source is unreliable with the subject that we are debating about. and when you look at the graphs that my opponent provide it shows that after the gun laws were enacted there was a drop in gun related crime, so then why does the gun related crime increase? well that answer is that the American public is using guns not to protect themselves but to harm other people. so with my opponent's source not reliable and not to mention that my opponents graphs all agree with my arguments that the crime is not being regulated and that the guns are being used not to protect the country but to harm eachother. so in conclusion my opponent has contradicted themselves as well as using an unreliable source, my opponent has unaffectedly refused my arguments and therefore I am winning this debate.
gun rights

Ok so the problem with the second amendment is the phrase " a well regulated militia". this its a tricky spot for both of us. Depending on how you interpret this, it can go both ways. The debate is between if militia mans private ownership, or government ownership. If you approach this as a grammarian you see: "shall not be infringed". So this means this is protecting a right that is supposed to be already in place. The amendment recognizes the right, but doesn't spell it out on you lap. In the 19th century, the supreme court said that he right to keep and bear arms is independent of the Constitution. Keep mind, these people are law geniuses. But it is still the militia phrase people ponder about. You say it doesn't apply saying it means a army or national guard. This is possible, I will not deny it, but the founding fathers were conservative like me. So it is fairly absurd hey would say this. They like guns, we won a war vs. England with guns, without them e would have been toast. They think we need guns to fight the government IF not when IF the government wants to take control like England. Its against their political ideology t be against guns. So you militia doubts are against their beliefs, which can not hold up logically. James Madison said " right to the people" in his amendment. Sounds clear to me. If he meant states or Military why not say so. No the crime here is some proof hat you wrong. The book more guns less crime says that more concealed weapons make less crime. yes because in the poor areas of Chicago, were the strictest gun laws are, have higher crime rates then lets say Texas. Here is some statistics when Washington D.C. passed the trigger lock law: After its passing murder was 73% higher then before it was passed, and after it was repealed, while the average murder rate was 11% lower. http://www.justfacts.com... here are some graphs about England and after their bans were passed. Here is another graph about the Chicago law: http://www.justfacts.com... I'm sorry for the links i can't copy the graphs over. this shows number of murders with guns after the Chicago ban. http://www.justfacts.com.... OK murder rates of Florida after conceal carry allowance: http://www.justfacts.com.... This I think proves my point.
gun rights

them moving onto my arguments my opponent is talking about how gun rights are protected by the constitution but if you look at the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " so lets dissect the wording of the amendment first looking at "a well regulated" which is pretty self explanatory in that its talks about regulation which gives the state (government) the ablillity to regulate who can own guns and who cannot. secondly the phrase "necessary to the security of a free state" which is about that the right to bear arms is in order to protect the country not that who ever wants a gun can get a gun. so when you look at the wording of the second amendment it states that the people can own guns only if it is to protect the country (and seems unlikely when you look at it now but in 1776 it seems more justified) to protect the country and the government has the ablillity to regulate who can own and who cannot own a gun Secondly the amount of gun related violence in the United States alone according to the NRA guns are the second leading cause of unnatural death in Americans age 15 to 24 and since 1960 more than one million Americans died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional accidents. in 2003 alone 16,907 died from suicide, 11,920 dies from firearm homicide, 730 unintentional shootings, and over 100 firearm deaths from an unknown circumstance which shows that there is too much gun violence in the United States that is not protecting the government and therefore those guns are not constitutionally protected so in conclusion the wording of the second amendment being that people can own guns to protect the country and the government can regulate who can and cannot own a firearm and with the large amount of crime just in the American border not to mention the middle east with the revolts and al-queda all the way from Brazil to Mexico and there drug war so the large amount of guns around the world has increased crime and all of the violence is not legally justified.
Pick your own issue.

1) My opponents first argument is that we can't have gay marriage because it would allow gays to have the same rights and privileges that straight people have. One example of one of these rights is being able to make medical decisions for your spouse. I disagree with this argument because I believe that discrimination is wrong. I don't believe the government should tell one group of people that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else. 2) My opponent argument is that gays, infertile people, and people who don't want children should not be able to have the same rights because they wont produce offspring via there own sex cells. This begs the question, what happens to all the children in orphanages? Gays people can adopt a child and studies show that children with gay parents turn out the same or better than children with straight parents. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3) My opponent is wrong when she says the only reason for marriage is to have kids. People don't get married to have kids they get married because they love each other. 4) My opponent then argues that allowing gays to have the same rights as straight people will result in "incest and ": polygamy" being legalized. First off my opponents slippery slope argument is dis-proven by reality. No country that has legalized gay marriage has legalized polygamy or incest. Second my opponent is using a logical fallacy, gay marriage has nothing to do with incest and trying to link the two is absurd. 5) The government banning gay marriage and recognizing straight marriage is an attack on religious freedom. Some churches recognize gay marriage so the govenrment only choosing to recognize certain churches marriages is tantamount to a government backed religion and violates the first amendment
Pick your own issue.

My opponent has again misinterprited my arguments and told everyone that I believe in some hainous thing. I will now refute.1. Apples to oranges?Yes, I suppose I am discriminating. Just like how discriminating how the rich should not recieve financial aid, or how the homeless should not have to pay estate tax. The point is, the government gives people things not because they are required to, but because they understand how they (the government) will benefit in the long run.Even if Gay's are born gay, although nothing points to this, they are not equal. They have a mental defect, like people with down-syndrome. The government does provide people with down-syndrome aid, but it is still separate. Like separate schools and medical aid.1.1. Paying more on taxes?I am not saying that Gay's should pay more taxes. I'm saying they are not willing to enter a heterosexual monogamous relationship to recieve the same breaks that are available to everyone. Strait's do not recieve tax breaks, they recieve tax breaks for entering a relationship with the intent of procreation.2. Modern society marriage isn't about kids!My opponent states that modern marriage is no longer about marriage. I do not believe this, but even if it were so, then we should no longer recognize marriage at all, which still makes my position victorious in this debate. In other words, if marriage is soley about love the state shouldn't give a sh1t in the first place.3. What about people who don't get married?For my opponents initial statements in "3)" see my "2.". My oponent now says that people who do not have children are still allowed to be married. This is true, except most people do eventually procreate. The government is just throwning spaghetti at a wall in this case.4. Incest?My opponent says he doesn't think it gay marraige will lead to incest. I simply stated that there is NO reason for marriage not to be extended to incestual union. He has yet to debunk this.5. Marriage is a religious thing.No it is not. Marriage is a state sponsered social union that, believe it or not, does have a legitimate purpose. So far I have said that purpose must be procreation or nothing at all (in which case marriage should no longer be recognized by the state). So far, my opponent has not answered my initial question: Why should the state recognize something (Gay marriage) if it does not stand to benefit from it.I now turn over to my opponent.
Pick your own issue.

1)My opponent is comparing apples to oranges. The fact remains that she wants to make it so that a minority of people do not have the same rights as the rest of society. The pro position is about making it so under the law that all people are created equal. 1.1)My opponent also argues that the reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is because married couples get tax breaks; this means my opponent want to make it so that gays pay more taxes then straights just because they are gay. 2)Marriage isn't for procreation; people don't get married to have kids; in modern society marriage hasn't been about procreation in decades; when my opponent say it is she is simply trying to ignore modern history and the facts surrounding what marriage is about. 3)Again my opponent is ignoring the reason actual people get married, just because she thinks that every marriage is about having sex and kids does not make it so. My opponent is advocating that if you get married you must immediacy have sex and then have kids or else you cannot not stay married and have the same rights as married couples. 4)Considering the fact that marriage hasn't been about procreation in decades I find it safe to say that marriage not being about procreation isn't going to result in incest. 5)Exactly. The first amendments says that congress shall make no law respecting a religion; if congress only recognizes marriage institutions from certain religions then it is recognizing those religions over others. The reason my opponent has not mentioned religion is because she realizes that her position results in the government deciding which religion get to have their ceremonies and ideals supported by the government.
Pick your own issue.

I think my opponent for his neatly orginized responses and arguments.1. DiscriminationMy opponents first claim is that by not allowing homosexual marriage to be recognized, you are discriminating against them. This is not so. The government does not provide welfare for the rich, or student aid for 40 year old businessmen who do not plan on attending college. Is this discrimination? No, it is the government being careful with it's funds.He also claims that the government should not deny rights to people. This is absolutly true, with the exception of when the government is providing rights to the people that are not their natural rights, like marriage.2. AdoptionsMy opponent is having me repeat myself:"This is absolutely true. Except this argument forgets the entire reason of state recognized marriage and perverts it. Marriage is for procreation. Another union can be initiated for couples who want these same benefits by adopting. (Like, a civil union?)Even if the government did recognize a gay marriage for it's adopting ability, shouldn't the government require gay couples to adopt immediately? Or if it became appearent that there are no children in foster care, should the government stop recognizing gay marriage? Either way, this isn't a very convincing point."3. Marriage is for love!!!!No it is not. Sure, people can devout to eachother and declare themselves inside a wed-lock, and call that marriage, but it is not the marriage we are talking about. We are talking about a rational government making decisions with it's money, and honoring heterosexual union. And, so coincidentally, the government does not care who loves who unless some sort of presidential sex scandal is involved.4. Slippery-slopeThere are a ton of variables in reality. Logically speaking of course, there is no reason to reserve marriage to monogamous matromoy if it's cause is not procreation, but instead adult gratification.5. Religious freedom?This is silly. The first amendment states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.This obviously takes religion out of the argument. In fact, you were the first person to mention it. I have so far said nothing on those grounds.
is it likely that a god created the universe or not

This becomes Harder now because I dont agree with our premise that by definition God is the ruler and creater of the universe. That would defeat my argument before it starts. "P1: All physical things have contingent existence" I agree. "P2: The universe is contingent" The universe is contingent on the big bang or the rapid-energy inflation that created the universe and still persists today. It is ignorant to lump everything that is contingent on the universe and lump it into the same type of contingency of the Universe which is contingent on a cause completely outside our current scope of knowledge. "P3: The universe depends on something that is non-contingent and external to the universe to exist" I think the universe "depended" on something that is non-contingent and external to "come" to existence. "C: It is likely God exists, and created the universe" Disagree. This is an assumption based on closely held viewpoint. We have no right to assert specifc dieties as causation. You can literally plug in any mythical diety you like (one that is described as all powerful and all knowing and created the universe) and read "It is likely Zeus exist, and created the universe" According to scientific articles and peer reviewed journals the laws of physics, the material world, and everything we know as reality, were created at the start of the big bang. It is theorized that this was the result of a battle between matter and anti matter which was obviously won by matter( Anti-matter also exists http://www.nasa.gov...) The implication of God as the creator of the universe is an assumption that holds basis in religion and the cosmological argument can be fulfilled by any outside deity that has existed over thousands of years and fits the major descriptions of God. There is no solid concrete evidence to further research this argument. Once you have accepted that God created the universe you must then immediately agree to certain terms of the religion afterwards such as: Not questioning the motives of God, not knowing how God created the universe, How the elements came into to play, Denying the possibility of extraterrestrial life regardless of how massive the universe actually is. With science everyday working harder and harder to explain the very hard to explain, they don't stop at what brought the universe into existence but venture of into how it was done. A question that will never be logically answered by the assumption that God created it. Your premise is ultimately unverifiable and hold's no physical or logical evidence to support it as claiming something doesn't necessarily make it true. If you are not religious and aren't afraid to question the motives of God please present research on how scientists theorize God created the earth and present evidence outside of the creation myth. Below are theories and evidence on how the earth came to be by credentialed scientists. I would have actually accepted your argument If you claimed that God created the big bang which in turn caused the universe to create itself. http://www.hawking.org.uk... http://www.quora.com...