BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is strengthening gun control laws necessay

I will first start by addressing your issue of allowing the citizens to arm themselves to the same extent as the government to protect themselves against it. If every citizen was allowed to buy every piece of military hardware the government has we would have a continuous civil war going on. The guy does like the winner of an election and launches a few artillery rounds at the white house. I realize this example is extreme, but so is your claim that there should be no limits on gun and weapon control. You said, "You could argue that they didn't have full-autos back then, but neither did the military." Well the government has nuclear bombs (which only a small number of countries possess) but like you said we should be able to defend yourself against the government on equal grounds. Well the government has chains of command and they do not randomly go crazy and massacre people in the streets or kill citizens on a daily basis. Now I"m not saying the government might not become oppressive in the future, but this would be exceedingly hard under the present constitution and they don"t shoot people daily because they don"t like what side of the town you live on. Imagine if every gun crime was done with a mini gun, like you talked about. Gang battles would evolve to wars. Whenever someone got mad they could just nuke Washington. Sure they would have to suffer the consequences for the millions of people just killed, but they still killed millions of people. It"s the government"s job to protect the welfare of society and they cannot do that if the citizens processed the same weapons as they did in the off chance, one day in the future, the government was oppressing them. Citizens do not have the right to make a military which is what you would be allowing if you give them the same weapons as the government. N.A.T.O. is the person who watches the watchmen. It"s pretty simple. When there is something wrong in another country N.A.T.O. votes whether it"s wrong and if it should help. They have put down many tyrannical governments throughout history, which is their purpose. Mandatory waiting periods will stop rash decision, in the heat of the moment. If the person is forced to wait a week before killing his mom there might be a change in thought, where rational thought is reacquired. You specifically said in your argument that gun sales and gun crime is going up. If you ask me and pretty much every person in the world if they see a correlation there they will say yes. You say overall crime is going down, that"s good, but I"d rather someone steal my car then shoot me. There are more guns and more gun crime. There is a positive correlation there. Now, theoretically if there were significantly fewer guns there, most likely, would be less gun crime. It doesn"t take a rocket scientist to understand that more guns equal more gun crime and more gun violence.
Is strengthening gun control laws necessay

We don't need gun control. Any gun control is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment, as it clearly states, "The Right of the People to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed". The 2nd Amendment isn't there for hunting ducks. It's there to protect the people against a tyrannical government. You could argue that they didn't have full-autos back then, but neither did the military. The citizens had access to the same kind of muskets that the military did, therefore, they were just as powerful as the military. Oh sure, you say the legal mag capacity should be 5 bullets, yet the military has guns that can fire 6000 rounds a minute without reloading. You should take heed of the old saying, "But who will watch the watchmen?" A waiting period for guns? What would that do? Anybody with the will to kill a bunch of people doesn't care about a waiting period. A one-time psychological test wouldn't hurt, but with a drivers license, all of your background information be accessed instantly! Why would you need to wait any longer than the time needed to obtain that info.? As for the massacres, look at Japan! There are school mass murders committed with knives over there! They outlawed guns in England, yet people are burning down London! According to FBI statistics(http://www.fbi.gov...), violent crime has been going down in the last decade, while gun sales have gone up. While America has more gun crime, overall crime has actually been lowering. Look at Switzerland! Barely any gun control, yet one of the safest places in the world. Outlawing the powerful guns would make a criminal gun-smuggling industry rise up, just like with Prohibition nearly a century ago as well as drugs today.This will allow criminals to obtain them while leaving law-abiding citizens powerless to stop them. Lastly, just because you don't want to feel like you have to defend yourself doesn't change the reality that you do. If we outlaw guns, criminals will not feel threatened and you will need guns more than ever.
Is strengthening gun control laws necessay

More gun control is absolutely necessary in today's society and is not a violation of the second amendment. People should be allowed to own a guns for self-defense and hunting purposes, but you don"t go hunting or defend your house with a modified assault riffle unless your street is being invaded by Turkish Rebels and you don't use 30 rounds either when you are hunting. It is not necessary for an ordinary citizen to have weapons of such force, with the potential to do so much harm, and you don't need a high caliber magazine to defend your home or hunt with. If you can't hit what you are shooting at with less than 5 bullets you don't have business owning a gun. Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.
Mighty Mouse V.S. Superman

Whether my harp is bent or not is irrelevant to the fact that Mighty Mouse was shot with a limburger bullet, believe it or not. However, he might return from the dead when the author decides to write the continuation of the story. Fans of Mighty Mouse can only have faith and pray to the mouse god for his return. The facts currently are what they are. It makes no difference if you believe them or not. Mighty mice suffer from various mice aliments created by Jeeses. I mean Cheeses. The stinky brands are the worst when it comes to being fatally odorous. They could suffocate any Mighty Mouse who was not wearing a gas mask. Whether Superman is just another confused pro wrestler on steroids or not makes no difference to the fact that his superhuman strength is stronger than fiction. Superman only pretends to be stressed out from his day job so he can make an excuse to take a break from typing boring news reports. He prefer to go and make the news. He likes to leave the reporting to Lois Lane so she can take the credit. He keeps a low profile in public for obvious super reasons. Superman has no credit card debt. He has his very own currency. You should keep up to date with the media. http://io9.com... You can make him richer than he already is by buying his currency since it is sold for much more then its worth but hey, that's enterprise for you. It keeps Superman debt free but you might need to borrow some money from Uncle scrooge if you wish to buy what Superman owns. Mighty Mouse is incapable of taking up any slack because he is dead. If Superman had a bent harp, he would most likely get Tinkerbell to fix it. Everyone knows that a good Tinker she is. She can fix anything. Superman is still alive. Mighty Mouse is dead according to the media. May he rest in peace. That proves Superman is stronger, mightier and super fit. The fittest always survive the game of the survival of the fittest. I rest my case.
Mighty Mouse V.S. Superman

That's a funny tune your playing., did you fall down and bend your harp? That death of MM is just as factual as the earth being flat or the rapture doctrine. MM doesn't suffer from the "human ailments" that Superman does. MM is more like a rodent version of James Bond. Superman is just another confused pro wrestler on steroids. Saving the world? HA I say to that. Superman is so stressed out from his day job at the Daily Planet and all the credit card debt that he has, in that DEBT FREE,stress free Mighty Mouse has to take up the slack when it comes to saving the world. MM even has a cousin that can mend your bent harp. Who would Superman get for such a chore? MacGyver? I rest my case
Mighty Mouse V.S. Superman

Superman can move a planet without breaking a sweat. Superman is too busy saving the world to spend time copulating in the bedroom. That's why we don't have a lot of super babies in the world. He is one of a kind. MM is obviously not effected by kryptonite. His weakness is cheese. According to the media, limburger cheese actually makes him weak. Some evil cat made a limburgerite bullet out of it, put it in a sniper gun and shot him with it. https://www.fanfiction.net... That is real proof that Superman is more super than MM is mighty. Superman could have saved MM from death because he is faster than a speeding limburgerite bullet. MM should have believed in him and then he would have been saved.
Mighty Mouse V.S. Superman

I want to keep this simple and few of words. Mighty Mouse can pick up a full size locomotive without breaking a sweat and MM is MUCH faster and better in the bedroom then Superman from various tabloid reports. PLUS the BIG fact that Superman can't handle kryptonite. It gives him a headache, cramps and the runs. MM is not effected by kryptonite in the least. Clear head, hungry belly and pellets for poo.
Mighty Mouse V.S. Superman

It is obvious to me that superman must be a lot stronger and also braver than mighty mouse because after all, he is a man. Everyone knows a man is stronger and braver than a mouse. That's why people ask others " Are you a man or a mouse" when they are trying to encourage them to be strong and brave. If you need evidence, just ask a man to pick up a mouse and observe ow easy it is for him. Then see if you can get a mouse to pick up a man. My bets would be that the man could pick up the mouse but the mouse would be incapable of picking up the man, no matter how mighty the mouse thinks he is. Therefore I believe I have debunked your claim that mighty mouse is mightier than superman is super. I am waiting with anticipation to see you prove a mouse mightier than a man. LOL
You choose, I choose.

Pressed for time but will do my best. Rebuttals will occur in next round.Fluoride is not a medication but in fact is a naturrally occurring mineral in most water supplies. This is not like debating whether to put prozac in the water, it is more like debating whether to put vitamin A in the water supply. We already fortify many common ingredients to prevent deficiencies, whether that be iodine in salt, vitamin D in milk or folic acid to breads and cereals. Federal health officials have determined that the optimal level of fluoridation is .7 parts per million. There are 2 main benefits from having fluoridation at the reccomended level. One benefit is strong healthy bones. The other benefit is to help create healthier teeth, as fluoride prevents tooth decay. Almost every study that comes out shows that water fluoridation saves the community money, we have studies showing that anywhere between 30 and 60 dollars is saved for every dollar invested in fluoridation programs. My one citation at the end of this wil provide the appropriate citations to confirm all these facts. One study shows that children who dran fluoridated water as children ended up having stronger healthier teeth even as much as 40 and 50 years later than children who went without it. According to my source, there is still a major problem with tooth decay in America and it has displayed the following effects:" "Tooth decay is the most common chronic health problem affecting children in the U.S. It is five times more common than asthma. Tooth decay causes problems that often last long into adulthood — affecting kids’ ability to sleep, speak, learn and grow into happy and healthy adults. California children missed 874,000 school days in 2007 due to toothaches or other dental problems. A study of seven Minneapolis-St. Paul hospitals showed that patients made over 10,000 trips to the emergency room because of dental health issues, costing more than $4.7 million. Poor dental health worsens a person’s future job prospects. A 2008 study showed that people who are missing front teeth are viewed as less intelligent and less desirable by employers. In a 2008 study of the armed forces, 52% of new recruits were categorized as Class 3 in “dental readiness” — meaning they had oral health problems that needed urgent attention and would delay overseas deployment" http://ilikemyteeth.org...Anyway sorry about the rushed nature of this, but that is the facts. The main part of my case is the rebuttal phase anyway. Goodluck to pro
You choose, I choose.

I thought this would be a fun twist on the "you choose" resolution selection system. The rules are simple. The opponent accepts the debate and decides whether they will "choose sides" or "choose the topic". Whichever role they do not choose swings my way. Example: The opponent opts to "choose sides". I will tell them the topic I have chosen in the comments and they will choose which "side" they are on. (For or Against)Example: The opponent opts to "choose the topic". They tell me the topic in the comments and I choose whether to be For or Against. Pretty simple. The idea behind this is that it will drive out a fair resolution, as neither debater wishes to choose a topic that is more easily won from one "side" than the other. Rules:1. The Burden of Proof rests on the side making a positive claim. (Ie, something does exist or something is this way. If the resolution is "Tigers don't exist," then BoP is actually on "Against", as they are making the positive claim by negating the resolution.) If this is confusing, as for clarity in the comment section. 2. The standard of proof should be based on probabilistic correctness and not rigorous demonstration/proof. (The latter is still fine, of course.) Ie, if someone shows that it is very likely that tigers exist, they have met their burden. I've included this rule, as one could very easily take a cynical approach regarding proof.3. R1 is for acceptance if I am "For" or it is for presentation of the opening arguments for Con if they are "against". 4. No Kritiks, arguments based purely on semantics, or any other argumentation structure that doesn't explore the issue at hand. You must have at least 4 debates and an ELO score equal to or greater than 2,000 in order to accept. It is possible for people with 4+ debates and a low ELO to accept, but I ask that you respect my wishes and not accept unless you have met the ELO requirement.
Civilization (towns, cities, settlements) is the proper way for man to live.

Mankind 200,000 years ago had religion, art, and culture. We can imagine that those people lived like the handful of untouched tribes today live. Each survived and prospered as each other thing in nature prospers. Pro seems to think that human population control, done by natural forces, is a frightful thing. Something to be avoided. But this is how every other population in nature is kept in check, and each thing in nature thrives, if left alone. Yes, we thrived 200,000 years ago. If we hadn't, as has been stated before, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Millions of people did not die of disease in the older epochs. People were spread too far apart to spread any contagions. People would simply die before the reached their neighbor to pass along the disease. I don't think Pro has any evidence for such events occurring. The human population of the earth was rather small at these times. perhaps 500,000 individuals spread across the continents. It took along time to get into the millions. Yes during the industrial revolution we experienced a rush of innovation in technology , medicine and all the rest. Since the industrial revolution the destruction upon our environment, our very life support system, has never been greater nor more widespread. We see the consequences of those actions today. Mankind is part of a living community. The community of life. And mankind is utterly dependant upon that community for survival. So how wondrous are policies that put us at odds with everything in the community of life? We have killed all our competitors for food, space, and resources. We cleared land, as pro mentions, for our homes and livestock, thinking this must be the right way to do things. For 11,000 years we have lived this way, and for 11,000 years things have been getting worse and worse. Slowly but surely, more population, more mouths to feed, more food needed to be grown, more space for that food, and on and on for 11,000 years. I have no need to highlight the dark ages. Human history is full of famines, wars, tyrannies, and destruction of the environment. Statistically speaking, Modern times are the most peaceful in history. How many wars are going on right now? 5 or 6 wars that I know of. And yet, most believe this is the correct way to live. Press ahead and try for more power, more resources, more food, and more people. More people will solve all our problems. In the future, well have technologies that grow a whole field of corn in a square inch, and we will all be immortal, and poverty will be solved. We will control the weather of the whole planet and hold the life of the planet in our hands. That's our destiny. But those things always come tomorrow, and today we are destroying our selves with how we live as a culture and as a species. Who knows if tomorrow will come? Today we have only one way to live. One culture. The culture that says humans are the paragon of life on this planet , and that this planet belongs to us and we can do what we damn well please with it. This is fallacy.
Civilization (towns, cities, settlements) is the proper way for man to live.

Your first argument, that for most of the last 200,000 years, mankind lived with no order yet successfully, is not true. Yes, we survived. But we did not thrive. Our population was kept in check by nature. When disease struck(which is much more often and severe than it was today, due to the lack of medicine.), millions of people died. And around those times, millions of people could have been a fifth or a fourth of the worlds population. Then, during the industrial revolution, technology advanced at a more rapid rate than any other time in human history. So more serious and effective medicine emerged, making life better for mankind as a whole. Also, we didn't exactly live in harmony with nature. We fought and killed off many animals for food. We cleared away forests for shelter and space to make shelters. What we did then is exactly what were doing now, except now we do it more mechanicalized, and at a higher rate to support our growing population. As for your second argument, "...we find nothing but famine, war, division, depreciation of human rights, and poverty." There were time periods such as the Rennasiance. And something else. Please do not use the European Dark Ages in your next argument. Because during the "Dark Ages", in the Middle East, it was the Golden Age. It's technological level advancement rate was at least equal to that of the Rennasiance, and at some points in history, even higher. There is an event that occurred that showed exactly how earth-shattering this Golden Age was. One of the leaders of the Middle East, during the Dark Ages of Europe, sent a clock to a king in Europe. The king did not know what it was, and thought it a plot to kill him, so he had soldiers destroy it. Many of today's commodities such as aircraft, cameras, and surgery equipment were made during this Golden Age. Finally, you say that, before the agricultural revolution, there were a million ways to live and a separate culture for each of us. Today, we a have a billion different ways. What with new movements ideas, all being sparked by the industrial and agricultural revolutions, there are so many different kinds of people and cultures out there, it would take 7 billion minutes to describe them all.
Civilization (towns, cities, settlements) is the proper way for man to live.

My arguement does take some mechanics from the theory of natural selection and applies them to this arguement. If there is some aspect of evolution and the theory of natural selection that you do not agree with, then we may become derailed inside another debate. So let it be. Through fossils and artifacts, we have found human beings have lived for at least 200,000 years. Through most of these thousands of years mankind has lived without civilization and all that comes will it. He lacked currency, basic economics, division of labor, and all the rest. And yet, throughout these thousands of years mankind lived in a way that was successful. And not only successful, but he did so in a way that did not destroy his environment, nor take undue advantage of others. Niether other humans nor the natural order of things. The proof of this success is in our existance. The agricultural revolution that started 11,000 years ago could not have taken place if the then-humans had not been in a position of success and stability. This stability was granted through living in harmony with thier environment. If they had not been successful, we would not be here to talk about them. The agricultural revolution started about 11,000 years ago in the middle east. Recorded history starts at around 4500 bc. Throughout recorded history we find nothing but famine, war, division, depreciation of human rights, poverty. We look before recorded history and we find scant evidence of full on war. Most human on human violence that occured was tribal conflict. Skirmishes, with an occasional wounded or fatality. After 4500 bc we find war after war, becoming more and more frequent as we draw closer to the current day. The same can be said to be true of famine. Poverty. Disease. The destruction of the village and the family. This frightening trend is due to cultural changes we all adopted after the agricultural revolution and that still carry on to this day. Before the agricultural revolution, there were a million different ways to live and a seperate culture for each of them. After the agricultural revolution, One culture emerged , ours. And this culture began to convert or crush each nieghboring culture until we get to the present day. And this is the effects of such a conquest.