BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Violence provoking the act of murder.

I have posted the comment below elsewhere on this site, but is worth repeating. When a person starts one of these discussions, they are forced to choose "pro" or "con." There is no category for "Neither," so I just picked one. Nevertheless, this discussion is only partially about gun control. I say neither, because you can not ban guns in a country that has a machine tool industry. Anyone who can run a lathe, mill, finishing grinder and cutter can make a gun for every one of their friends. It's a moot discussion that serves only to keep the focus off of the real issue. A way to waste our time in an act of futility. Our problem isn't even about guns. The excuse is always, "We can't stop Hollywood (discussed below) so let's go after what we can." The fact is that if you want to fail at solving this problem, fighting the gun issue is the way to go. You can 'kill' with a stick, knife, poison, blunt objects etc. What is the definition of "copout?" Human suffering, chopped off heads, squirting blood, torture, rape, mutilation, cannibalizing and all other forms of hideous sickness is now entertainment. People will scream like a pig under a gate about "guns" and never say one potent word about the cause of murder. We have desensitized people until they will pay to watch someone's guts spilled onto the street. It sickens those of us who value human life as sacred, to hear those individuals claim this hideous display qualifies as free speech, or that it doesn't affect them. You have merely to open your eyes and ears to pick up references to these horrid human degrading productions in association with murders every day. It has desensitized them, otherwise they would be able to see how this "entertainment" creates crime! Interfering with freedom, not promoting it. Determining that injury can interfere with freedom and pursuit of happiness is why you can't scream fire in a theater. It's not free speech. How have we allowed this virus to sicken society to the point that people will adamantly defend their 'right' to watch human suffering? Fiction or not, how did people come to enjoy this!? It's easy and quite "safe" to jump on a bandwagon about guns. "Scream about Hollywood and the video games our kids and adults as well, play? Oh, for Gods sake no! That's actually taking a solid stand!" Why aren't folks trying to outlaw knives? That's even safer!
100 roman legionnaires

I will start like my opponent:*disclaimer* No, I have absolutely no clue how to train an elephant *end of disclaimer*ArmorElephant's Armor Natural Armor An elephant's skin is extraordinarily tough, it is over 1 inch thick and the fact is, war elephants were widely used simply because their skin could protect the elephant from arrow and sword blows. Even without armor. (1, 2)Man-made armorAn elephant's metal armor consisted of drapped metal sheets over the elephant with a "tower" for two archers and a space for the driver. This, combined with its skin, protected the elephant from all melee and ranged blows. Spears included. (1) Aside from its underbelly which no-one would be dumb enough to go. Quite honestly this is simply logic, would you go under an elephant for the purposes of pissing it off? No, you'd die. End of story. Even so, an elephant is large enough that a single man from the ground could not reach the belly with his sword.Archer and driver's ArmorDue to the fact that the driver and archer's were basically invulnerable to all melee blows (they are on the elephant and pretty far the ground, makes it rather hard to hit them by sword). Armor consisted of simple infantry armor. A helmet and plate and/or chain mail.WeaponsElephant's WeaponsThe War Elephant had many weapons. First, simply itself. An elephant can charge at up to 30 miles per hour and shear fact is, if you get stepped on, you're dead. They could not be stopped really by setting spear lines. Second, terror. Terror is a great weapon, if you get your opponent's to run away, you win. The fact is, seeing 38 elephants in the middle of a battle field does not inspire great confidence in any person. In fact, the Roman's are known for being afraid of the Elephant. (2) Third, a chain and iron ball. Many war elephants were equipped with heavy iron chains with steel balls at the end. Quite simply, the elephants were trained to swing the iron balls at the enemy. And as you can imagine, this had devestating results.Archer's WeaponsArcher's use a composite recurve bow which had a wooden core with strips of horn glued to the back and reinforced with tendon. In other words, it's a relatively powerful bow. Archers also carried 6 foot long pikes, just in case.Now for the fun stuff...TacticsI have 38 War elephants at my disposal. 15 of them will be used solely for the purpose of archery and keeping the Romans heads down, so to speak. As the Roman military attempts to place its caltrops, all archers will fire hopefully stopping the placement. When the battle commences, 15 elephants will be placed just in range of the Roman military. But, out of range of the Roman pillums (as bows can fire farther than pillums can be thrown.) These 15 elephants are both archers and "reserve" chargers. The remaining 23 elephants will charge at the enemy at speeds of up to 30 miles per hour. When the elephants hit the Roman ranks, the Romans will break rank. The swinging of the metal balls, combined with the trampling and the tusks will make sure of that. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
100 roman legionnaires

Armor A galea was a Roman soldier's helmet. Lorica segumentum consisted of broad Metallic strips ('girth hoops') fastened to internal leather straps. the plates of lorica segmentata armour were soft iron inside and (some at least) were mild steel on the outside. Scutum The Scutum is light enough to be held in one hand and its large height and width covered the entire wielder, making him very unlikely to get hit by missile fire and in hand-to-hand combat. The metal boss, or umbo, in the center of the scutum also made it an auxiliary punching weapon as well. Weapons Pilum generally about two metres long overall, consisting of an iron shank about 7 mm in diameter and 60 cm long with pyramidal head. The shank was joined to the wooded shaft by either a socket or a flat tang. The softness of the shank would cause it to bend after impact, thus rendering the weapon useless to the enemy. More importantly, If the pilum struck the shield of an enemy it would embed itself into the shield's fabric, and this along with the bending of the shank would cause the shield to become unwieldy, forcing the enemy to discard it or waste time trying to pull it out. Hasta thrusting spear about 2 meters long with blade attached to top via a socket could be used in tandom with the scutum tribulus (caltrop) is a weapon made up of four sharp nails or spines arranged in such a manner that one of them always points upward from a stable base (for example, a tetrahedron). Caltrops serve to slow down the advance of horses, war elephants, and human troops. Gladius is the general Latin word for " sword". In the Roman Republic the term 'Gladius Hispaniensis' (Spanish Sword) referred (and refers today) specifically to the short sword, 60 cm (24 inches) long, used by Roman legionaries. A pugio was a dagger used by Roman soldiers. It was probably a sidearm. Like other items of legionary equipment, the dagger underwent some changes during the 1st century. Generally, it had a large, leaf-shaped blade 18 to 28 cm long and 5 cm or more in width Tatics Caltrops are placed on the battlefield as to impead the charging heavy cavliry. In the act of carging the elephants travel at about 25 mph at top speed. When steping on caltrop the elephants my break formation due to pain of the caltrop embedded into pad of the foot. Once in range of the Elephants the first wave of pillums are thrown. after geting closer th mandiples of ten troops select a target and proceade to throw second wa of pillums. The Hasta is then used when in close quater fighting with the romans priking at un armd parts of the elephant like eyes and feet casuing dicomfort and pain causing the cavilry to beak. The gladius can be used in hand to hand with the elphant with slashes to unarmored under belly.
Corporate Tax Should be Abolished

Thank you AdamCass. It is important to remember that a corporation is not a single entity, but a group of people. When a corporation is taxed, the tax burden falls on all of the customers, employees, and shareholders of that corporation. Corporations handle enormous amounts of money, but their balance sheets add up to zero. Every cent of income that a corporation receives from its customers is spent either paying workers or other business, reinvestment, or paying dividends to shareholders. In order to pay taxes, a corporation must either reduce investment, hire fewer workers, pay its workers less, charge customers higher prices, or pay lower dividends to its shareholders. While it is tempting to believe that corporations are sole property of the super rich, this is not in fact true. A single corporation can be owned by thousands of people, and everybody with a mutual fund is a partial owner of an enormously "wealthy" corporation. Corporate tax decreases the dividends that are paid to people (many of them retired) who own a small share of that corporation. Taxes on "rich" corporations are advertised as checks on the wealthy, but the reality is that they often hurt middle class and poor people (consumers, workers, and retirees) as well as the rich. A tax on very high incomes or large fortunes is a far more effective way of taxing the wealthy, and does not directly harm the middle class or the poor. All taxes cause some harm to the economy, but the corporate tax is especially (and unnecessarily) harmful. If a government that did not have a corporate tax were to raise the the existing income tax rate, this might be economically unwise, but it would be much better than establishing a corporate tax, because creating a corporate tax would create even more tax paperwork. (The time and money spent on tax paperwork is not insignificant in our byzantine tax system) Abolishing the corporate tax would streamline and simplify the tax code even if the change were accompanied by raising the income tax rate. (It could also be argued that taxes on businesses are more economically damaging than taxes on consumers, but this is not universally agreed upon by economists) Ironically, the arguments in support of the corporate tax rest on the fallacious idea that a corporation is a person, the idea that a corporation is a single, colossally rich, monolith, rather than a group of people, many of whom are middle class and poor.
Gun Control

Here we go... I would like to remind everyone that gun control DOES NOT mean prohibition or banning of guns. Rather, it makes it so it's harder for people to get a gun. Rebuttals ============ 1. Suicide Dropping this one as there isn't much more to say about this 2. Aggression Yes, I agree, we shouldn't get into an argument about the validity of Zimmerman's account, but it's wrong just to have one side of the story. Here's the article (pretty old): http://www.cnn.com... Having a gun CAN increase your aggression. [1] A man in Florida shot and killed another person watching the movie just because he was annoyed by his texting. His annoyance is understandable, but shooting someone? That's wrong. He wasn't a criminal either, in fact, he was an ex-police officer with an untouched record. He wouldn't go to the black market to get a gun, he got that gun via legal gun stores. He used it to kill someone for no good reason. There was also a 12 year old boy got hold of a shotgun and shot and injured some of his classmates. The kid wouldn't be getting that from the black market, would he? He got it from his parents or guardians (they didn't ACTUALLY give the gun to him, he found it). We need gun control, not to prevent criminals, but to prevent injuries and murders caused by NON-CRIMINAL INDIVIDUALS. Again, we're not banning guns, but we are making it so the right people get a gun, not the people who will kill someone because of texting. 3. Deadliness Some criminals DON'T hesitate to pull the trigger. You hear countless accounts on the criminal "claiming their own life". If the civillians have guns, they won't hesitate because they were planning to end their own life anyway. What Con is suggesting here is that we give gun rights to schools. What? That would be extremely unsafe. Some criminal posing to be a law-abiding citizen with a gun, could check into the school with the gun. Then later he could open fire INSIDE THE SCHOOL. Nobody would see it coming. At least, with gun prohibitions, anybody with a gun is not allowed in, so the school can plan an escape route. In conclusion, we should have stricter gun laws so we can protect the people from un-necessary murders. Just like the guy who shot someone because he was texting, many people are killed out of aggression by a legal weapon. If we make it harder for people to get a gun, only the trusted individuals could get guns, and we know they won't pointlessly kill someone. Yes, there will still be criminals, but we could prevent countless murders as well. Sorry about the sloppy and small argument, real life is starting to get to me now -_-. Sources ============= [1]: http://www.usnews.com...
Gun Control

Thanks for your arguments, Con. Rebuttals ============ 1. More guns, less crime This is the most common argument made by Pro-gun people. Here's a phrase that might sound familiar "Correlation, not Causation". Here is a graph from Con's source #1 about Chicago and its gun control: http://www.justfacts.com... This is from the same source as Con, and it shows that AFTER a period of time, the murder rate went down. Also, the graphs fluctuate, and the murder rate goes down and up. Also, take a look at the name of the graph, it says "Homicides Reported By Police in England AND Wales". This is misleading information. The graph combines BOTH England and Wales together, and that's why the murder rate looks high. If more guns=less crime why does the UK have a smaller murder rate than America? [1] UK's murder rate is 1.0 and the US' is 4.7. Also, Con's graph only goes to 2007 is severely outdated. Remember Chicago's graph? The crime rate died down after a couple years. Furthermore, we cannot say gun control is the sole reason why the crime rate is rising. Economy, Health care, Politics, etc. all play a role on the homicide rate. Remember, the population in the UK grows every year, which results in more homicide because there are more criminals and more people to kill. And here's a question for Con: The black line on your graph represents "Homicides sans large anomalies unrelated to guns", what does that represent? 2. Self-Defense Yes, criminals can obtain guns through the black market. However, take this into consideration. Having guns readily available to the public and without strict gun control laws that enhance the security of these sales give criminals an easy way to get guns. This gives criminal an easy way to kill someone, since a gun is a strong lethal weapon. I also need to call attention to Con's source #6. The notes say that 0.9% of people fired the gun for self defense, and 7% used the gun to "scare someone". Let me ask a question, when you add those together you get 7.9%. How about the other 92.1%? What did they use the gun for? Also, 0.9% is a low percent for "self defense". I also call attention to Con's source #5. In the source, it says that the data between different studies are vastly different and they disagree with each other. This says that the studies are not credible, as different studies disagree with each other. Lastly, I need to say one last thing about sources 5 and 6. They are from a site called GunCite.com. The site is obviously biased and should not be trusted. Oh, and the article is made in 2003, pretty outdated. I would have more arguments, but I'm running low on time. Sorry about the small argument, I have a lot of things going on. Your turn, Con. Sources =========== [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

As Con, I shall argue against gun control. Below I have laid out my argument against it.= Case =More Guns, Less CrimeIn 1968, Britain put restrictions on possessing guns by requiring citizens to get a certificate from the police allowing them to obtain a shotgun. Following that law, the homicide rate average in England and Wales rose 52% higher since the law was put in place.[1] In 1997, Britain confiscated nearly all guns in England, Scotland, and Wales. Subsequent to the 1997 law, the homicide rate rose another 15%.[1] Gun crimes have dropped dramatically over the last 20 years in America as gun sales have surged. From 1993 to 2011, homicides with firearms has dropped 39% and other crime with firearms has fallen 69%.[2][3] In that same time period, the amount of cumulative firearms has exploded.[2][3] Where there’s gun control, there’s high crime rates. For example, “Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe.”[4] A study there also found that “the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).[4]Self-DefenseWhat needs to be pointed out here is that guns can and are used to defend people from crime. Criminals can just obtain guns from the black market, so banning gun laws really isn't going to help. If anyone honestly thinks that criminals are going to follow the law, they are very wrong. In fact, it will paint civilians as targets since they won't be able to defend themselves. They will become more vulnerable to crime and assaults.Guns can be used for bad, but they can also be used for good. Dr. Gary Kleck conducted a study that found that approximately two million defensive gun uses occur each year[5]. Prior to his study, thirteen other studies showed that between 800,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses are used per year[6], which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. [1] http://www.justfacts.com...[2] http://www.zerohedge.com...[3] http://www.infowars.com...[4] http://theacru.org...[5] http://www.guncite.com...[6] http://www.guncite.com...
Nationalism was beneficial to 19th and 20th century Europeans.

Nationalism caused an unnecessary destruction in the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe. Nationalist uprisings lead to numerous revolts, disturbing order and causing needless death. As well, nationalist stirrings lead to the wars of unification for both Italy and Germany, leading to numerous wars (Franco-Prussian, Franco-Austrian, Italy-Austria, etc.), and the end of an era of general peace in Europe. Nationalist stirrings lead to the assassination of the Habsburg heir, and caused World War 1. Nationalism continued onwards after World War 1 however, and in part, fierce nationalism in Germany lead to World War II. Even modern conflicts in the Balkans are almost soley because different nationalist groups seek independence. Ultimately, nationalism has had a negative effect on Europe in the past two centuries.
Jesus Christ being Alive is verifiable

There is no proof that the Bible was written by God, therefore the issue of salvation is only a mater of faith. Pro must prove that there is a process by which every person can verify that Jesus Christ is alive. --My opponent said: Verification will come when all below conditions start to be met: 1.You come to know the commandments of Jesus Christ. 2.You obey the commandments of Jesus Christ. 3.You listen (do not ignore) to the Holy Spirit that Teaches you and speaks to you. 4.Continuing to call out to Jesus in your circumstances I have tried this before in life. I found no Jesus. Saying "You didn't do it right" is not an arguement. If over 1.1 billion of the earth's 6.6 billion people are athiest, then 23% of the earth's people also deny the existence of Jesus. Got any pics of Jesus? Birth certificate? Wanna meet up with me for dinner and bring Jesus? One of the most common Christian ideals is that Jesus DIED for our sins. ==Your argument could prove that it is possible to have faith in Jesus, however it in no way proves the existence of Jesus Christ. ------- If a man today claimed to be the son of God and that God spoke through him, he would likely be deemed insane. Show me some moved mountains, show me someone walking on water, but faith proves nothing. ------
Jesus Christ being Alive is verifiable

Assertion: Jesus Christ being Alive is verifiable. This debate should be an interesting one depending on the con. Great Christmas time debate! Victory Conditions: I need to prove that there is a process by which every person can verify that Jesus Christ is alive. The con will need to show that there is no process to verify this. (Assumption: Jesus Christ is a real person and did die.) Needed Definition: Salvation (saved) - redemption: (theology) the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil. http://www.google.com... The God of the Christian Bible (all bible translations agree on this) states that the process for verification of Jesus being resurrected from the dead is to call upon the name of Jesus and you would be saved. 1.You need only call upon Jesus to save you and He will do so. 2.This can be done at any point in your life but will manifest itself when you are in the chosen circumstance by God. 3.This is also attested by Christians the world over and throughout History. 4.This process is stated through communicators of and from God throughout the Bible, historical literature, and people surrounding you. 5.Each person that follows this example will come to know that Jesus Christ is alive and that he is able, as well as willing, to save you. Verification will come when all below conditions start to be met: 1.You come to know the commandments of Jesus Christ. 2.You obey the commandments of Jesus Christ. 3.You listen (do not ignore) to the Holy Spirit that Teaches you and speaks to you. 4.Continuing to call out to Jesus in your circumstances At this point when all stated criteria are met you will then come to know Jesus Christ and you will, not only speak to Him daily, but also hear from Him daily. Good luck to my opponent!