BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

I'll be giving three main reasons for my argument, it is a constitutional right, the truth about guns in America, and real solutions to stop gun violence. First it is a constitutional right. In the 2nd amendment it states that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It shall not be infringed that is pretty strong words, it doesn't state that is should be controlled, sanctioned or even managed instead it states that it shall not and will not be infringed. If the Constitution is the law of the land than this is the law and it will stand and Gun Control will not be implemented. Many people are looking for blood and the misconception of guns has taken full force. First of all guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns doesn't make someone a killer just like how a hammer doesn't make someone a house constructor. Time for the real numbers the fact is 99.9% of all guns in the United States are not used in violent crimes because most gun owners in the United States are good law binding citizens. Only 4% of guns used in crimes are obtained legally because making guns illegal doesn't stop gun crime and that 4% will ether turn to illegal guns or just find legal ways to obtain them because if someone is willing to kill or rob someone that obtaining an illegal gun is then crossing the line, I don't think so. When a mass shooting occurs when the shooter is stopped by a armed civilian the average number killed in the shooting is 2 while if the shooter is stopped by the police the average killed is 18. Police officers can't stop crime they just come and clean up the mess, it takes civilians to have save streets. Bad people will always find a way to get guns, take marijuana for example it is illegal in 48 states, but it is the largest cash crop in the United States because is someone wants something all it takes is a call from a shady character and sell in the black market. Gun control doesn't stop bad people from getting guns it only stops good people from getting guns. Truth about guns can make people open their eyes to what is really going on. I find it ironic that those in Washington calling for gun control have security officers that carry guns. If they feel so strongly about gun control why don't they set the example and have their security officers give up their weapons, but they won't because they know if something bad happens they want guns to protect themselves, then why can't a civilian do the same with their own life. If you want schools to be save than let the teachers have training and have a gun in class so that if something horrible does happen they can protect the students. Because in Connecticut where the shooting took place was a "gun free zone" , but this is a hollow promise because to a killer it will says "target practice." People need to protect themselves from what is out in the world. Stop the witch hunt against guns and started a witch hunt against evil people. Sources http://beforeitsnews.com... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.drugscience.org... http://www.wnd.com...
"Rape Penalty"

Thanks for the intriguing topic thett3. "In accepting, my Opponent is also agreeing to finish this debate no later than 7 Pm central time on the 7th of August." --Sure, I agree to this, except I cannot control how quickly my opponent posts, so hold him accountable if he takes a long time to post his arguments. I accept my opponent's definition of "just" as "what is morally right." I will use the moral system of utilitarianism, i.e. achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. ==My Argument against raping rapists== 1) Who will do the raping? Forcing average law abiding men or women to rape a dirty, smelly rapist is unjust, violating our right to a trial before punishment, since the average law abiding citizen doesn't enjoy rape, especially of a disgusting sexual deviant who can't get laid the normal way. You thought jury duty was bad? This goes beyond the call of our civic duties to help society punish criminals. 2) Not a real punishment Most rapists are extreme sexual deviants who may enjoy being raped. If the only punishment were rape, the deterrent effect would be destroyed, since rapists could rape a woman on the street, get raped themselves, and be free the very next day to rape again, creating an endless cycle of recidivism with no real punishment for these sexual deviants. Also, if a rapist drew Megan Fox to rape him (it would be random, right, like jury duty) then this would actually create huge incentives for rape. 3) Circular Rape, by definition, is a crime. When a rapist is raped, this creates a brand new rapist, i.e. the person raping the rapist, who now also needs to be punished by another person, who by raping that new rapist, also becomes a criminal and also needs to be raped, going on ad infinitum until we've turned our entire society into rapists. 4) Unconstitutional The Constitution bans "unusual" punishments, which the Supreme Court has often defined as flouting "common standards of decency." Capital punishment has been practiced since the dawn of time, but rape is certainly "unusual" and against common standards of decency. I'd take my grandma to witness a capital punishment; she could handle seeing some guy getting a needle stuck in him. But I certainly wouldn't take her to watch a rapist being punished in the way my opponent would like him to be punished. 5) Kritik I'll wait to see how my opponent responds to my first points, then I'll run my kritik. I await my opponent's response.
"Rape Penalty"

Full Resolution: If proven to be 100% effective in preventing recidivism, eye for an eye implementation of a "rape penalty" I.E. raping rapists, would be a just punishment. One of the most common anti-death penalty arguments I have heard is that "we don't rape rapists, so why is it ok to kill a killer?" The reason being, of course, that a "rape penalty" would not be as effective at deterring recidivism as the death penalty is. However, what they are implying here is that there is something morally perverse about a punishment like this. So now, I offer my challenge. In accepting this debate, my Opponent is accepting the full burden of proof. The Con side must argue convincingly that a rape penalty would not be a just punishment. Just is defined as "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair: 'a just society'."[1].In accepting, my Opponent is also agreeing to finish this debate no later than 7 Pm central time on the 7th of August. I'm going on vacation from the 8th-15th without internet access. If my Opponent posts an argument past this time, all seven points are coneded to me. If My Opponent posts a new argument in the last round, all points are conceded to me. I have the right to cross-examine my Opponent. The first round is to be used by my Opponent to state their opening argument, not acceptance. If my Opponent only uses the first round for acceptance, than they forfeit the conduct vote. Thank you to whoever accepts, and I hope we both have an excellent debate.1. http://www.google.com...
Gallaudet University for the deaf is not beneficial to the deaf.

Now, based off your definition of the word beneficial, Gallaudet University is entirely beneficial to the deaf in many ways. Gallaudet University confers many benefits upon the deaf by providing them with an environment to learn skills that they would otherwise have trouble learning in a normal university because of their impairment. The deaf require a special learning environment to learn to their fullest ability, and without this they are comparable to an English speaking class with no experience of other languages being shipped off to a Norwegian school (just a random example) where they don't speak English, or vice versa. Besides conferring benefit through learning to the deaf and hearing impaired, it also gives them personal benefits through giving the deaf self-esteem through learning and accomplishing things. It also makes them form opinions about the world around them and how it works. Finally, going Gallaudet University also gives the deaf/hearing impaired social well-being by letting them get to know other deaf people and build long term relationships, just like all college students. Finally, with new skills and personal and social well-being deaf/hearing impaired people are better prepared to enter as you call it "the real world," but isn't it also true that their world is just as real as ours? I sense discrimination in your statement.
Gallaudet University for the deaf is not beneficial to the deaf.

I would like this debate to be a fast one. By this, I mean I'd prefer it if my opponent stayed online to complete the debate. Gallaudet University - http://en.wikipedia.org... Beneficial - 1 : conferring benefits : conducive to personal or social well-being [1] Deaf - lacking or deficient in the sense of hearing I believe that Gallaudet University for the deaf is not beneficial to the deaf. Due to the fact Gallaudet specifically accommodates the deaf to the fullest extent, many hearing impaired students are isolated into this deaf - only community. Unfortunately, this world is not completely deaf. Over 28 million people in America have some sort of hearing loss [3]. Though this is a large number, most of America is not hearing impaired. As a result, it is unreasonable to believe that the "real world" would accommodate these students the way they have been accommodated at Gallaudet. So in reality, Gallaudet does a disservice to the hearing impaired community as they are furthering their experience with the deaf community, not with the real world. Sources: [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] - http://www.docstoc.com...
Girls should not be allowed to wear mini skirts in work related environments.

I have not failed my burden of proof, because I presented evidence that companies are against miniskirts ( you presented no evidence about the status quo other than your own word, nor did you present any evidence except a single study saying masturbation can be helpful) Next you rebutted my points without giving me a chance to respond, therefore resulting in a full 7-point drop. For all of these reasons, it is necessary to affirm the resolution.
Girls should not be allowed to wear mini skirts in work related environments.

My point of view in this debate is completely about ethics. It is not about freedom of expression, nor is it about the rights of the employer. The purpose of this debate is to talk about ethics, and that is all I'm here to talk about. Contention 1: Foreign Business International trade is a risky business, simply because of vast cultural gaps even between countries that are similar. For example, in England, it is rude to maintain prolonged eye contact because it is seen as aggressive. In Japan, wearing white is taboo, for it is the color of death. In France, liberal dress is considered to be rude. When looking for trade partners, foreign businesses try to learn as much about a business as possible. This includes standards of procedure, rules of conduct, and dress code. The employees are a business, and the way they act and dress are all major indicators of what a business is like. When women are allowed to wear miniskirts, which are quite liberal pieces of clothing, foreign businesses see that and are turned off, because they feel unwelcomed and humiliated. It is unethical for a businesses that trade internationally, or are planning to trade internationally, to allow employees to wear liberal dress of all kinds. Contention 2: Consumers & other employees There are some consumers who do not mind liberal dress. There are other consumers, like me, who do not patronize certain businesses simply because of their employees dress code. Nor would I invest in a company that does not have a strict dress code. That would not be a problem if not for the 80% of women who believe that miniskirts do not belong in the workplace, and 61% of men who share that opinion (Reuters 2011). That's a huge percentage of people who feel uncomfortable being around women in miniskirts. This applies to both consumers and the miniskirt wearing women's fellow employees. Is it ethical for a business to make their customers and employees uncomfortable? Absolutely not. Contention 3: Investors Professional investors prefer to invest in businesses that appeal to as many customers as possible, maximizing their ability to make a profit. As I've shown earlier, foreign countries don't like to trade with companies that have lax dress codes, and consumers don't like them, and employees don't like them. If nobody likes them but the people wearing them, where will a company go? Down the drain. Investors don't like companies that are doomed for destruction. End of story. Contention 4: no advantage There are really no advantages to wearing miniskirts except to the people wearing them. And the people who like miniskirts can wear them when they return home, still gaining their advantages. To finish, miniskirts are bad for business. They turn off foreign business, they turn off consumers, they turn off employees, and they turn off investors. The only advantages of miniskirts are reaped by the wearers. So, you ladies who wear miniskirts can wear them to anywhere you want, save your workplace, because, really, they're bad for your job.
Girls should not be allowed to wear mini skirts in work related environments.

Saw him post this in the opinions section. Challenging him to a debate to defend it. Anything goes Rules (1) he has the BOP (2) He shall make arguments in round 1 immediately following the rules and guidelines (this post) (3) Shall type no round as agreed upon in the last round. Failure to type this results in a full 7 point drop due to him having an extra round.
The Roraima Pollen Evolutionary Paradox

Why does the finding of pollen in Roraima rock undermine Evolutionary Theory? According to Evolutionary Theory, plants didn't evolve flowers until around 120 million years ago.(1) However, pollen has been found in Roraima rock.(2) This undermines Evolutionary Theory because Roraima rock is geochronologically dated to be at least 1.7 billion years old.(3) This is a paradox that even a child can understand, because it suggests that pollen existed over a billion years before the first flower existed. This conundrum undermines Evolutionary Theory because it has gone almost half a century without being resolved, and is scarcely acknowledged in the Evolutionary literature. I will now preemptively rebut the following likely objection from my opponent: The finding of pollen was due to contamination, and it was a one-time occurrence that could be explained by human error! Actually, the finding of the pollen was verified by multiple geologists on a later expedition: “This discovery of pollen and spores in a formation of supposed Precambrian age was so remarkable that a reconnaissance expedition of qualified geologists was organized to verify the facts of the case[...] the three palynologists made independent investigations of the new samples. Utmost care was taken to avoid any possibility of superficial contamination[...] Nevertheless, [pollen] microfossils of the same type as before were recovered.”(1) My opponent cannot defeat my case by arguing that the radiometric dating of Roraima rock is incorrect. For if that were the case, Evolutionary Theory would still be undermined since it relies on the same radiometric dating to establish that the earth is “old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms.”(4) My opponent asked me to describe the paradox “in detail”, suggesting that I should explain the technical aspects of the problem. I decline, as I don't feel it's necessary, at least not until Con raises objections of a technical nature. Con also asked me to provide “modern sources” about the paradox. I ask Con to define what he means by “modern” in this context. My first source is dated 1966. If Con doesn't think it's recent enough, he will have to explain why. Last, but not least, Con requested that I posit an alternative theory to Evolution that can explain the existence of pollen in Precambrian rock without producing a paradox. I will decline, since it's not necessary to prove my resolution. Here is a photo of Mount Roraima piercing through the clouds: (1) http://paleobiology.si.edu... (2) http://www.nature.com... (public-access copy: http://rpasmd.org...) (3) http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org... (4) http://www.cas.org...
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

So its a little bit different with only one exception, I won't be using scientific terms. I expect you to debate and argue under this context: I am arguing that the God Hypothesis indeed qualifies as a scientific explanation as well as the best one for several reasons. It is a rationally conceived hypothesis, it does not violate occam's razor, there is enough evidence that would describe the nature of this cause from connecting the data points, and most importantly its falsifiable. Lastly, the burden of proof is mainly on me since I am scientific approach for the most part so it needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under. However, you will naturally have to provide an alternative explanation to rival against the God Hypothesis or else my explanation would have to stand by default. That's how it works. Also, to the audience, I have gotten some complaints before about not using scientific terms. I don't want to do that here because most people reading this debate may not understand it and I don't know the range of scientific terms I should or would use to qualify it. Lastly, if five rounds is too long for you, then I will change it. However, if this is the case, You need to be the instigator while I become the contender. Since I have the burden of proof, I need to have the last word.
Classical Music vs. Techno

Classical Music Rocks!!!!!!! Con will argue that techno music is superior to classical music. First round is for acceptance. Since this is my very first debate, and I feel as if I need experience debating, I have decided to select a non-serious and relatively non-controversial topic to start out with. I will be debating against the common belief that techno music is superior to classical music. This debate is intended to address the advantages and disadvantages of learning both genres, and for each debater to make an argument for why learning his preferred genre is more worthwhile than learning the other. Many thanks, in advance, to my opponent, and best of luck. I hope that this will be an interesting and enlightening discussion. Being a very avid fan of music, I know I'm looking forward to it! :)
AOW: NORTH korea vs SOUTH korea

The Grammar Nazis destroy greathkitten and I win. Due to the fact that you forgot to take care of the tank force behind enemy lines they attack your force from the rear. They then vanish again attacking and harrasing the enemy so that they cannot operate. Anti bat bomb measures are in place. Damage reduced. The enemy army was destroyed by a death raw blast. While not mobile it is a scary stationary defense. Especially against armor. Total war is declared. Along with that the WMD is detonated in Pyongyang. 74% of all the population is killed along with most of the muck mucks. Kim jong un survives but an assasin kills him. It sits in the sewer until he sits down on the toilet. Bang. The South Korean Navy meets the North Korean Navy. South Korea curb stomps and begins to shore bombard. Morale is at an alltime low for North Korea. Their father is dead. Their capital is destroyed. South Korea while damaged has one more card to play. 2 million civilians and troops rush the border. Their ferocity means that they strike fear into the hearts of the enemy. You guys are the judge.
AOW: NORTH korea vs SOUTH korea

I am so confused what is happening but I am going on vacation for the weekend so please wait a while until posting your argument. Death ray progress until completed 54% South Korea marches on Pyongyong. The shattered North Korean army pulls together a resistance but people rioting in the streets as their power wanes is taking a tole. 1456 tanks attack on the opposite side of the city dividing the cities forces. After 2 months the city is captured due to the aerial battle. The South Korean fleet attacks another port destroying all ships at anchor and the entire city as well as any subs before scattering.
AOW: NORTH korea vs SOUTH korea

Revolutionaries while badgered are holding. The North Korean propaganda videos are laughed at. The war for the air begins to go sour for South Korea. AA defenses are installed in every major city. South Korean fleet destroys nearly all of the subs attacking them because they had sonar. South Korean army meets the North Korean. The North Koreans fall back due to efficient use of flame tanks and that their army was curb stomped earlier. After a bloody five day battle both sides fall back. 2000 tanks attack the rear of the North Korean forces. The surprise causes them to run into the arms of the South Korean army. The North Korean army is crushed but the South Korean army need to heal up and reinforce. An Iron dome clone is put into production. A draft is instituted but is not need due to people signing up quickly. Factories are booming churning out tanks and aircraft. Scientists work on a death ray, using Japanese research. http://www.wikiwand.com... They did nearly succeed but only in the lab. Progress till complete 89% Good luck you will need it.
AOW: NORTH korea vs SOUTH korea

Time for you to die. Two bat bombs detonate simultaneously in both camps. 20 flamer tanks that have been under super secrete production attack both camps. Both armies run towards the border. The combined South Korean Navy attacks North Korea's main port. As this concentrated fleet is bigger than anything the enemy could put together they smash it and burn it to the ground. Arms are dropped int North Korea along with promises of better treatment and food. Rebellions spring up. Four assassins kill Kim Jung un. Factories kick start with a cash prize for the most productive spurring workers to work faster for the honor. Nuclear bunkers are put under production. Israel allows south Korea to look at the Iron dome. Bat bomb detenated in Pyongyang. The South Korean army forms and attacks with 2 million soldiers, 20000 trucks, and 5000 artillery pieces. A convoy of 2000 trucks breaks from the group. A tank force is ambushed at 3:00 and destroyed. The massive tank force that attacked has dissipated.
AOW: NORTH korea vs SOUTH korea

My WMD is Fluorine with 15 parts per million. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... October 25 America withdraws troops, North korea gets cocky. October 27 South Korea purchases 50 airplanes from America for 250 million dollars. October 28 North Korea begins to mobilize troops. October 29 South Korea mobilzes them as well. November 1 North Korea declares war on South Korea. November 2 The reserves are called up. You move now. I give you 120 days till your doom.