BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Less Gun control

I believe that all weapons should not have any more control than they already have. Now you may think that all people that share my beliefs want everyone to have a gun. That's not true. I believe that people with no criminal record should have the right to protect their homes and families. People with mental disabilities and criminals should not have them. They are the ones causing mass shootings and us to live on fear. 2 blocks from my house a man took bath salts and left his 2 year old kid. His neighbor helped him fix his computer beforehand and he went crazy. He then went to his neighbors house and burned down their front door and back door. He waited outside with a gun. Luckily he got impatient and left while his neighbors family escaped. But before he shot ten rounds into the air. I went and got my gun and was ready. Ready to protect myself, my family, and my community. The police show up after the crime is done but the law abiding citizens of this country are armed and ready to fight crime everywhere. We're not just rednecks shootin' up trespassers. We are going to protect America from any dangers, especially ourselves.
Less Gun control

Your argument right is the reason why so much violence is occurring. 'I view America as a happy place'. Let me ask you something, citizens have had the freewill to buy guns for decades now, and at what time in that period has 'America' been a 'happy place'? The problem is that you keep using the gun as a rhetoric and a protector. Your minded is so fixated on this ideology that weapons and guns have become a household item, equal enought to food and drink. It has becoome a widely inevitable and acceptable norm. The society that comes with guns is a society whereby people are living in a state of fear, looking over their shoulder. YOUR PROBLEM is that your perspective is very short term oriented. You keep stating facts and scenarios that are occuring. However, by saying that gun control is taking guns from 'good people', your forgetting the fact that it is gun 'control', and not abolition. The fact that it is a 'control' is to serve the purpose of maintaining restrictions on who can buy guns and enhancing licensing requirements. Over the long term, a society the way you imagine it, with every good 'American patriot' is going to lead to the abolition of any sense of humanity in America, with everyone holding guns, and not being able to differentiate between good and bad guys. INSTEAD OF THINKING HOW ARE WE GOING TO MINIMISE THE DEATH TALLY, WHY DON'T WE GO TO THE COMMON SIMILARITY BETWEEN ALL OF THESE DEATHS, WHICH ARE GUNS. It is the '1% Whackjobs': According to the FBI statistics, 14% of homicides and murder are carried out by strangers, and 15% of homicides are carried out by family members. This is a testament to the fact that your statistics are false, that 99% of murders are committed by people who have been let out of prison. Firstly, even if this is true, theny why do we need guns to protect ourselves from this. Why don't we try and lobby or make sure that these people that are leaving prison are monitored or are kept on preventative detention. Secondly, 15% of killings are made by family members, so again, how do we differentiate between these people? I understand that there is an increasing worry over gang-related deaths, but this is where the citizen must try and put faith in law enforcement. Again I repeat, the cycle of violence must be stopped, and it is the citizens who must take the first dignified step in order to ensure a safer environment for future generations. By saying that 'criminals have all the weapons', that is a false statement in its own rights. In fact, criminals do not have more weapons than citizens, it is rather the same, with an estimation that median household has more than 2 guns. As I have said, the ideology that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is an ideology borne on killling the human race. I believe that gun control should be first directed at breaking the chain amongst criminals receiving weapons, but this causation must also be broken amongst citizens. I leave you with my last comment. Your future view of America is no different than it is now, as you do no wish for tighter gun laws. Are you happy with the state the America is now?
Less Gun control

The future of America in my mind is far different than yours as every two different views would be. I view America as a happier place. Not an America where the "good guys" can't defend themselves and the criminals have all of the weapons. How would taking away the rights of people with guns help end gun violence. 96% to 99% of people that commit murders with guns are people that were let out of prison and jail with early release, plead bargains, and bails. It's 1% of the time that some whack job who had a clean sleight and shot a person. The police show up after the crime is done. They don't magically appear when a bullet is shot. Americans shoot someone 2.5 million times in self defense per year. Which is about 6850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Hows that for your statistics. I'm wondering, do you want less murders by guns? Well of course you do, who doesn't? (Except the criminals) Well we have that. If you would read a map about concealed carry areas, you would find what you're looking for. Areas with stricter gun laws have more gun violence. Areas with less gun control have less gun violence. Which do you want? More or less violence. Choose one. And your right, anyone could have a brain snap at any point, but would you like the police to return fire and kill that person after he has killed 36 people, or would you like a concealed carry American patriot stop the threat before he kills anyone. I'll tell you, I live about 10 miles away from the Aurora movie theater and go there commonly. If I or anyone else with a concealed carry permit had been in there, they would have neutralized the threat before all those people got killed. And you might say, "oh well what if that concealed carry guy went crazy?" Then another one would neutralize that person. Not every person with a gun is going to go crazy, but we're ready for whoever does. Now think about this. If the criminals knew that there was a big handful of concealed permit carrying people, do you think that they would think that they could get out of their crazy moment with living. Creating a presence of protection from concealed carry licenses would stop criminals motivation to commit these horrible crimes. If an intruder came into your house and you got a hold of the police that were 10 minutes away, what would you rather do? Hide under your bed, or fight back. The government needs to trust citizens and not be afraid of them. We're ready to collaborate with police and protect our homes, our community, and our country.
The US Ought to Drop the Embargo on Cuba

CUBAN ETHANOL Environmental Harms Frontline 1.No impact to species loss – surviving species will adapt. 2.Corn production technology is becoming cleaner. 3.Planting corn does not trade off with other crops because corn fertilization is efficient enough to provide additional crop yields. 4.Developing economies like China and India are more key to emissions than the U.S. Economy Harms Frontline 1.Turn: Midwest Economies. A.Government support for domestic corn ethanol is critical to preventing Midwest state economies from collapsing. The plan causes prices to drop, destroying jobs and magnifying the impact of any recession. B.Importing ethanol from Cuba will collapse Midwest economies 2.Sugarcane ethanol will never be productive enough to make a dent in global gasoline consumption. Other policy changes would be necessary to solve. 3.The international ethanol market is too weak to drive up demand. 4.The U.S. economy is resilient and will recover from any shock. Solvency Frontline 1.Even if the U.S. fully supports Cuban ethanol, there is no domestic political support or prospective internal economic demand to restart the industry. 2.Cuban governmental policies are anti-business, which will impede foreign investment. 3.Brazil is already ramping up diplomatic pressure on Cuba to develop sugarcane ethanol, and it is more influential than the United States.
The US Ought to Drop the Embargo on Cuba

The US ought to drop the embargo on Cuba. This will help primarily to release invaluable Cuba reserves. Contention One is HARMS Scenario One: Environmental Destruction The status quo commitment to corn-based ethanol is destroying the environment. 1.U.S. policies favoring corn-based ethanol over sugar-based ethanol force farmers to plant only corn which massively increases fertilizer use. This is 300 times worse for global warming than carbon dioxide emissions. 2. Grasslands where corn is planted are carbon sinks, storing dangerous gases underground. Plowing them to plant more corn releases emissions into the atmosphere causing global warming. 3. Global warming is nearing a tipping point, where stopping the problem is impossible because momentum keeps warming the planet even after emissions stop. 4.Global warming makes every war scenario inevitable by creating migratory stresses and resource shortages. Contention Two is the second HARMS Scenario: Economic Collapse. The United States’ trade embargo with Cuba makes it impossible to access Cuban-grown sugarcane ethanol. Oil- and corn-based fuels are causing fuel price spikes that collapse the U.S. economy. 1.The U.S. economy depends on cheap and efficient liquid fuels for automobile transportation, but petroleum gasoline is becoming more expensive and unstable. 2.Oil price changes cause spillover effects in every industry that uses oil, leading to economic collapse. 3.Livestock and farm operations depend on lower feed prices, especially corn, to maintain profitability. Importing sugarcane ethanol will keep feed prices low and increase trade opportunities. 4.Agriculture is America’s strongest export, and stability is key to economic recovery because of the sector’s job-creating potential across multiple industries. 5.Economic collapse causes cutbacks in necessary defense spending and global nuclear war. Thus, we present the following PLAN: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba by fully legalizing the importation of sugar-based ethanol from Cuba into the United States. Contention Three is SOLVENCY: Ending the embargo on Cuban sugarcane ethanol will establish a market that allows the industry to sustain itself. 1.U.S. support for Cuban sugarcane ethanol is the most effective way to combat global warming because it creates a biofuel market that solves global oil dependence. 2.Cuba’s ethanol industry is dying because of regulations put in place by Castro, but there are enough natural resources to quickly restart. 3. Most Cuban agricultural land is not being used, so growing sugarcane would not require destroying any habitats. It is comparatively safer than U.S. corn or Brazilian sugar.
You cannot be sure that anything exists outside of your own consciousness

Awesome! I will try to describe a bit better.I am pulling from the notion of Epistemological Solipsism, which is is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false. Further, one cannot also be certain as to what extent the external world exists independently of one's mind. For instance, it may be that a God-like being controls the sensations received by one's brain, making it appear as if there is an external world when most of it (excluding the God-like being and oneself) is false. However, the point remains that epistemological solipsists consider this an "unresolvable" question. (Philosophical Dictionary: Solipsism)Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
That Santa Claus, on Balance, is Beneficial to Mankind

LAST. ROUND.I never conceded as my opponent accuses me of. I accidentally took the wrong side. Now, I explained in the last round why it all actually goes in my favor instead of against. My opponent accuses Santa of putting desert animals in the North Pole and penguins in the desert. Again, we don't know. The evidence is that Santa is fair and just to the people/children of the world, nothing suggests he won't be unfair to those animals either. Santa has different magic than witches. Besides, witches are thought to be evil while everyone knows Santa is good, so they won't burn him.As for the reindeer, yes, because if they deserve to die/want to die, they deserve death by reindeer. "An old man breaking into your house doesn't sound good anymore, does it?" Santa doesn't steal. Santa gives. I don't see what's wrong with good old Santa "Breaking" into the house if he only does good and not bad. My forfeiting of the debate: young children cry all the time. There's a reason they're called "cry babies". Not even Santa can solve that.IN CONCLUSION I have dramatically, epically, turned over this case and managed to prove Santa was beneficial to mankind rather than having negative effects. Many, many of my arguments remain unrefuted.This was probably the hardest debate I have ever taken on and I will double check any other debates I ever do and try not to surpass the difficulty in this debate.VOTE ME.
That Santa Claus, on Balance, is Beneficial to Mankind

Pro is trying to claim it was an accident, this does not explain why he conceded and forfeit the debate by arguing FOR me AND saying Santa is bad.Still making a rebuttal."We don't have to worry about going to the North Pole to help the animals any more" Look VERY close at this. Is...is that a wild cat in the snow!? Yes, actually it's a Lioness! Santa brought a desert native animal to the NORTH POLE. Santa helps animals? No, he captures them and puts them in the cold to freeze them to death. Except animals native to the cold, which he puts in the desert. s://c1.staticflickr.com...; alt="" width="640" height="427" />See how confused these innocent penguins are?Magic? MAGIC!? Magic is what caused a LOT of deaths to women in the middle ages. Innocent women were titled "witches" and burned, drowned, hung even. Does magic sound good to you? Look at the pain on her face...she's innocent."Now to talk about "Santa's cruelty". Two people can justify a reindeer killing a woman? Please, one of them's the singer's "Grandpa", and the singer sounds pretty old to me. 40's? 30's? I don't know, but his grandpa is near-dead, so he seems to be the only survivor. Yet, he sings about the song pretty jollily, and he doesn't go like "I HATE SANTA BECAUSE HIS REINDEER RAN OVER OUR GRANDMA." Are you claiming it's still okay to run people over with reindeer?"My opponent tries to talk and stress on Santa's intimidation. That's actually a good thing. He can intimidate burglars"That is if people don't think HE is the burglar. An old man breaking into your house doesn't sound good anymore, does it?"He has an intimidating face to avoid reporters asking him questions, stalking him, or even assassins murdering him! This old man is not one to be messing around with, he's Santa! Because he's so darn popular, he has to try using disguises and different routes so murderers won't kill the all-important Man of Christmas. Santa is good in his heart, he may look evil, but in reality he's awesome, intelligent, having an excellent plan that prevents reporters, murderers, while still doing his job."His job is to break into your house, scare people off, look intimidating to scare children...oh wait you didn't explain that.It's okay for Santa to look intimidating but WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? My opponent can't explain that."You gotta admit you laughed at some of those photos. He scares the children to get laughs, even the children laugh after they realise Santa wouldn't really do any harm to them.Photos of children after the initial intimidating face of Santa:"Then why is a CHILD CRYING IN THE SECOND ONE!? See the child IS CRYING. He's intimidating my opponent has confessed it through photography. It appears as if my opponent is forfeiting the debate.
That Santa Claus, on Balance, is Beneficial to Mankind

My opponent has actually argued in my favor, explaining everything wrong with Santa, which was supposed to be my job. He confessed Santa was actually bad, thus he loses the debate. Vote Con. I guess I should still present an argument. Santa is not beneficial to mankind in anyway. The fear he causes is one big reason. Here is some photographic evidence. .. (Disclaimer: I do not own the photos presented. Non profit, ownership belongs to the true owner) . http://www.trbimg.com...; data-content-naturalwidth="600" data-content-naturalheight="438" /> . http://www.trbimg.com...; data-content-naturalwidth="237" data-content-naturalheight="375" /> . http://www.trbimg.com...; data-content-naturalwidth="479" data-content-naturalheight="625" />As you can clearly see, Santa is a frightening person. Notice the change in his appearance as well. Some moustaches are curled, others are straight. He may look much older or a little younger. Even the glasses are hints. Santa is the master of lies and deception! Lying, as most of our parents have taught us, are bad. Thus we are left with this scenario. .. Parent tells kid lying is bad. Parent tells kid Santa is good. Santa is a liar and a frightening being. Thus, lying is good. Pro had already argued for me and most of what I was about to say. Remember. .. My opponent has actually argued in my favor, explaining everything wrong with Santa, which was supposed to be my job. He confessed Santa was actually bad, thus he loses the debate.
That Santa Claus, on Balance, is Beneficial to Mankind

PREFACEI agree, I have lost fair and square to Bsh1 in a debate about a topic similar to this one. Bsh1 is Bsh1 is Bsh1 is too awesome for the likes of 9spaceking. But--I have been losing debate after debate. Even troll debating, it seems, for me, I have lost my charm and I've been losing to Malacoda. It seems that even within a noob-snipe, I am failing to achieve my goal. Thus it has been decided--I must do a revenge debate! RULES -BoP is shared-We will assume Santa Claus exists -Round one acceptance -6,000 characters per round-You may only have one troll argument maximum per round, assuming you want a troll argumentGood luck and have fun!
Jew World Order is real

Introduction In this debate, my opponent has set out to prove that there is a unified conspiracy by Jewish people to control the world. However, the evidence he has provided for the claim is sorely lacking. Rebuttals 1. Many bankers are Jewish We must remember that this debate is about a "Jew World Order", that is, a unified conspiracy by powerful Jewish people to control the world. My opponent has argued that because many of the top bankers are Jewish, there is a unified conspiracy of Jews controlling the world. While being rich does give you more influence, and many rich people are Jewish, my opponent has not shown that they"re all working together towards some sort of unified goal or conspiracy. Thus, this argument isn"t relevant to the topic. The Jewish people were historically the ones who worked in the banking industry because they have fewer religious restrictions on Usury, and this tradition simply was inherited today. [1] This indicates that the Jewish bankers became bankers out of circumstance rather than conspiracy. 2. The Jewish people delayed the abolishment of slavery The Jews made up a small proportion of slaveowners in the south, and didn"t start the Southern tradition of slavery; they simply adopted it as they assimilated in the United States. Thus, because they were a minority of slave-owners, their actions were not important in keeping slavery alive.[2] 3. The democrats are not supported because of their stances on Zionism My opponent has stated that the Democrat party isn"t being supported for being anti-Zionist. This is despite the fact that many Jewish Democrats, including Bernie Sanders and Feinstein, have made criticisms towards Israel. The fact that all of the Jewish politicians in the US Federal Government support the usually anti-Zionist Democratic party shows that they aren"t in a concerted effort to push Zionism, which would be the case if my opponent"s ideas were true. [1]http://rationalwiki.org... [2]http://history.stackexchange.com...
Troll Debate: Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber are Secretly a Gay Couple

Okay, I only have 13 minutes, lol. Rebuttals:"My opponent claimed that a guy leaning his head against another guy is not gay. This couple who he saw doing this probably was gay, but they weren't quite ready to admit it publicly yet. Also, there's never been a direct mention of Ron Paul in Veggietales (as far as I know). "My opponent drops that someone leaning their head against someone else equates to the two being attracted to one another. "My opponent claims that they are asexual. We have no way of knowing this, so this point is null, I guess. "No, I claimed that it was possible. I also showed how your either/or argument for being homosexual or heterosexual was a fallacy. "Ignoring my opponent's accusations, the Sombrero Song in Veggietales shows Larry wearing a dress. This is evidence of homosexuality. Also, if my opponent is male and he wears dresses, then he might very well be gay (though this is not guaranteed). "How is this even evidence? I mean, come on, bro. lol. Wearing a dress is something by choice and is only physical. Homosexuality is innate and within one's deepest desires. The two aren't really connected. "Let's see, evidence for Wikipedia's rack of reliability. .. Done! I just now changed the article on Obama to state that he's a secret communist Muslim who isn't a citizen. But by the time you look it up, a nerdy underweight Wikipedia user named Joe will have erased this. "My opponent never provides a source therefore, the resolution is false. Vote Con. :* He needs to provide scientific evidences to prove his points, lol. "My opponent says that they just like walking around naked. However, if two guys walk around each other naked, they're probably gay. The Roman Baths closed about 1700 years ago. Is there anybody on this Site who disagrees? "I disagree, lol. And how are Roman Baths relevant?
Troll Debate: Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber are Secretly a Gay Couple

I applaud my opponent's trolling skills. He/she has a knack for this, I think. That being said... My opponent claimed that a guy leaning his head against another guy is not gay. This couple who he saw doing this probably was gay, but they weren't quite ready to admit it publicly yet. Also, there's never been a direct mention of Ron Paul in Veggietales (as far as I know). My opponent claims that they are asexual. We have no way of knowing this, so this point is null, I guess. Ignoring my opponent's accusations, the Sombrero Song in Veggietales shows Larry wearing a dress. This is evidence of homosexuality. Also, if my opponent is male and he wears dresses, then he might very well be gay (though this is not guaranteed). Let's see, evidence for Wikipedia's rack of reliability... Done! I just now changed the article on Obama to state that he's a secret communist Muslim who isn't a citizen. But by the time you look it up, a nerdy underweight Wikipedia user named Joe will have erased this. My opponent says that they just like walking around naked. However, if two guys walk around each other naked, they're probably gay. The Roman Baths closed about 1700 years ago. Is there anybody on this Site who disagrees?