BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
2nd amendment

In his last argument,pro stated that the government has no right to dictate by what means we can protect ourselves. Even though we do have the right to protect ourselves with firearms, this right also makes very easy for insane people to cause needless violence. And the reason the government wishes to regulate high capacity guns is to limit this violence, not to harbor your rights. And the government is not forcing us to protect ourselves by some other means, they are only suggesting that the only way to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands is to watch them more closely. Pro also stated that the problem is not legislation, but enforcing legislation. I would like to point put that the only reason people are struggling to enforce legislation is because they are blindly protecting a right that also enables those of unsound mind to acquire machines that can easily kill. Pro stses that the problem is enforcing the legislation, not the legislation itself, but seems to have a problem with government passing legislation that regulates guns. In my last argument, I stated that guns should be more closely regulated. By that I meant two things. One, that the only way to keep guns out of the hands of those of unsound mind is to monitor them more carefully. Two, I was mainly referring to high capacity guns. On the topic, I beleive that high capacity guns are unnesscecary and overly harmful. There is no need to shoot an attacker dozens of times when one shot will effectively disable him. And, these high-capacity guns can fall into the hands of the insane, enabling them to cause many fatalities.
Evolution is proven to occur

Opening Arguments 1. Microevolution The idea is simple, every indivdiual has certain traits and these traits will determine whether or the individual is able to survive and reproduce so that these individual's genes are pass on to the next generation. Example: a black bat is more likely to survive than a white bat, because white bats are easily visible to predators, therefore can't pass on traits to the next generation such as being white Note: this example may not be accurate, it's just a basic example I made off of the top of my head to show how Microevolution may occur. If you still don't understand than please view my source real world applications. [1] 2. Macroevolution This idea is simple yet many refuse to accept it or simply mosunderstand it, speciation exists and creates different species. Allopatric speciation: species form from psychical separation. [2] [3] Sympatric speciation: species that are reproductively isolated. [4] [5] Example: The Kaibab and the Abert's squirrel have many differences but were once the same species, you may ask how this happened to I will explain in-depth. The population lived together (In fact, the Kaibab squirrel didn't even exist yet but rather ancestors) and bred together often however the grand canyon began forming. With the forming of the Grand Canyon the Abert's population could no longer meet each other and share genes so their differences increased, in addition they now lived in different environments the north rim is a boreal forest, and the south rim is the ponderosa pine forest. The pine forest receives massive amounts of snowfall, experiences heavy rain and common thunderstorms meanwhile the boreal forest is colder but receives much less precipitation. They had to adapt to survive in their environments, and nowadays lab breeding attempts fail, due to evolutionary differences they can no longer breed and are literally a different species. [6] [7] [8] [9] Note: This is one of millions of real-world examples Sources: [1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [3] http://www.britannica.com... [4] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [5] https://www.boundless.com... [6] http://www.nps.gov... [7] http://www.sbs.utexas.edu... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_squirrel
Evolution is proven to occur

(emphasis in below quotations are Con's)."A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven."http://chemistry.about.com..."Using strictly scientific definitions, no, a theory cannot be proven true."http://wiki.answers.com..."Theories are never proven to be true but they can be falsified"http://www.personal.psu.edu...But what does the Journal of Scoience teaching say about the matter?"A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True"http://chance.psu.edu..."To take the first case, if a prediction agrees with the results of an experiment, does that mean that the underlying theory is true? It is not that simple. The logic of science does not permit us to make that kind of strong inference. After all, any reasonably sophisticated theory allows for a large (and usually infinite) number of predictions. Only a few of those may be amenable to direct comparison with experiment. The fact that those few agree does not give us the luxury of inferring that any future experiments will also agree, a well known difficulty known as the problem of induction. So at best, those successful predictions will serve as evidence in support of our theory and suggest that it is not obviously wrong, but that is about it. The greater the preponderance of evidence in support of a theory, the more confident we are about its validity, but we never reach a stage where we can unequivocally assert that a theory has been proven true."http://freethoughtblogs.com..."The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove."https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...While I appreciate the variety of hyperlinks provided by Pro with the hope and desire that Con should take on the burden to browse through and complete an argument for Pro - Con cannot oblige Pro's desire for someone else to make Pro's argument for Pro. Pro's reluctance to post factual evidence being supported by reference merely underscores Pro's inadequate understanding of the topic. To merely regurgitate the original claim over and over while only providing numerous and tedious hyperlinks does not satisfy the burden of proof for Pro's position.Pro's postings have been tantamount to merely exclaiming "yes it is!" over and over.Pro has provided very few statements and provided very little evidence of various portions of the theory of evolution being observed, Pro has failed to establish any argument that the Theory of Evolution has been proven. Because, in fact, science really does not allow for any theory to ever be "proven".
The Constitutionality of Secession

My opponents claims- 1. to deny a state the right to secede goes against the very principles this nation is founded upon. First I would like to note my opponent uses excerpts from the Tenth Amendment. The fast it the Tenth Amendment is not justifying succession, it is simply stating that the federal government of America is giving the regional government (the states) power to make there own decisions. If we took this amendment literally then the states would have power to massacre there citizens. Now if we look at this in a logical perspective, you'll see that the Tenth Amendment does not give all inclusive power to the regional government, but merely power enough so they can make decisions in the society. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Notice it was, "from the consent of the governed". It does not say that a regional government has total power, and should be allowed to exercise thus. "It's my belief that to deny a state the right to secede goes against the very principles this nation is founded upon. " This country was founded on the belief that a democracy with all it's parts working together, because this allows a nation to truly prosper. We were founded on a belief that is, if we work together we can achieve the unachievable. Not, "well I have to take care of myself, and forget the rest of the nation. " Also give the readers one good reason a state would secede from the United States. Thank you and I hope you enjoyed this round of debate.
The Constitutionality of Secession

It is my belief that to deny a state the right to secede goes against the very principles this nation is founded upon. Our Declaration of Independence states that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and that "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish" any government that becomes destructive to the rights of the people. One of those rights is the right to self governance. The people give the government its power. Whenever a government proceeds without the people, it is denying their right to self governance. When a government denies the people their rights, it is the right and duty of the the people to alter or abolish it. If the people of a state feel that the government is, for whatever reason, infringing upon their right to self governance, then those people have the right to secede. America itself exists because of the Founder's belief in the right to secede. America was less than a state, it was a colony of Britain. But, Britain infringed on that colony's right to self governance and that colony chose to secede. They felt overburdened by taxes and wanted to create a fairer government. They were exercising their right to self governance just as the South did in the 1800s.
The Constitutionality of Secession

I accept the definitions provided above. First off it is not a state's right to secede from the national or federal government that encompass them. A state/province willingly objectifies themselves to the laws and decrees of the national/federal government they are a apart of. So then is it within there right to exercise a right not given to them by the national government they are apart of? The fact is most secessions are due to disputes pertaining to differences between regional and national governments. A regional government does not have the right to dispute with it's national government because a regional government is ruled by it's national government, ergo they don't have the right. Now many people will argue "What if that state is oppressed or under dictatorship? " A valid argument, but one my opponent's resolution does not address. I, however, will address this. Under the extreme cases of religious/political/ethnic oppression I do believe a state/province has the right to secede, that being said I don't believe that my opponent's example of the "old south" qualifies as this. The Confederates were trying to secede because of something highly immoral and unjust, and therefore this example is irrelevant and should not be a debatable point.
The Constitutionality of Secession

This is the classic North v. South debate from the 1860s, but it is still a very heated argument. The question is whether or not the United States Constitution gives a state the right to secede. A state is being defined as any sub-national entity that shares its power with the federal government of The United States of America. Secession is being defined as leaving the United States of America to create a new nation or join another nation (whether currently existent or not).
There was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus

In order to support the resolution that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus, pro states: The Philo of Alexandria helps establish a pre-Christian belief in a Messiah figure named Jesus that shares qualities with the Christian Jesus. The Talmud helps establish a pre-Christian belief in a figure named Jesus from the early half of the 1st century BCE. Rebuttals: The Philo of Alexandria "The Philo of Alexandria helps establish a pre-Christian belief in a Messiah figure named Jesus that shares qualities with the Christian Jesus." To support this claim, my opponent has stated that Philo of Alexandria was a pesher, or someone who looked for hidden meanings. Because of this, pro concluded that Philo interpreted Zechariah in a way that the Messiah would be named Jesus. While this seems like sufficient evidence for a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus, Philo being a pesher does not neccessarily mean that Philo interpreted Zechariah in a way that the Messiah would be named Jesus. The Talmud "The Talmud helps establish a pre-Christian belief in a figure named Jesus from the early half of the 1st century BCE." While the Talmud does help establish this belief, it does not neccessarily prove that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus, and is therefore not sufficient evidence that There was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus. Conclusion In conclusion, the resolution that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus is largerly dependent on Philo of Alexandria and the Talmud. Since both of them fail to prove that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus, pro failed to uphold the burden of proof that there was a pre-Christian belief in a Jesus. I thank SNP1 for a good debate and a fun time as well. He did a good job with his arguments of Philo and the Talmud, though I think I have successfully rebutted these arguments. I hope we can have another debate together in the near future too.
Naruto is overrated, and is average at its best

1. Naruto isn't useless, he was instrumental in a number of fights including Haku and Gaara. It's very easy to feel bad for him, after all, he's an orphan, which is why he pretends to be arrogant. He constantly feels grief, and shame in himself, so he puts himself out as an arrogant bastard. As far as the luck thing goes, the affirmative only provided one instance where this was true. 2. The main character is a tailed beast, so it stands to reason that the tailed beasts would be the center of the story. Additionally, the show wouldn't make any sense if Naruto just randomly had more karma than anybody else. Not to mention, his tailed beast is what sets him apart from all of the other characters. 3. I'm not sure what the affirmative was trying to say here other than killing off characters is bad. Kimimaro was a very sad character, and you could easily see why he was doing what he did. I agree that Orochimaru dying without a fight was a bit lame, but that doesn't make his death any less satisfying. The reason only two heroes have died is because the writer obviously doesn't want to start murdering all of his protaganists unless he's planning on ending the series. As far as Itachi, it was worth it, mainly because Itachi provided all of Sasuke's motivation, and was also the source of all of Sasuke's character development. 4. Next, the affirmative says that the writer is unoriginal. He probably used a real ramen place as a shout out or an easter egg for anybody who recognized the name. As far as the sannin being part of mythology, this is just the writer putting a more modern and interesting spin on old mythology. As far as Sasuke being a real ninja name, this show is about ninjas. It stands to reason that the writer would want to use an established ninja name. It's like if we made a medieval movie, we would probably name the king Arthur because it's a name that everybody is familiar with. Not to mention, the Affirmative already admitted that it didn't make the show bad, but that there is a "quality dip," when the writer began using his own imagination. Does the aff wish for the entire anime to be based on stuff that already exists, cause that would get really boring, really quickly. 5. First of all, an arc is not twenty minutes long. An episode is twenty minutes long. An arc consists of multiple episodes, such as the Sasuke Retrieval arc. Second, one should probably not be watching a show if they don't understand what is going on. That's just asinine. 6. Lastly, the aff claimed that the only reason one should watch the show is because you're connected to the characters. Not only is this a great reason to watch the show, I provided numerous reasons to watch the show which my opponent didn't cover, and I also just defeated all of the Aff's supposed reasons not to watch the show. I chose not to discuss filler, because filler is exactly that. It's something created by the makers of the show to waste time while the show catches up with the manga. It has nothing to do with the story, and therefore has no weight in this debate. I'm now ready for any rebuttals and defenses the Aff would like to make.
Naruto is overrated, and is average at its best

I haven't actually gotten to Shippuden yet, but I think regardless, it's deserving of the attention and praise it receives. To begin, from an entertainment standpoint, Naruto is very fun to watch. It's often very funny, and the fight scenes are awesome. From a storytelling perspective, I could see it being criticized as a generic shonen, but shonens are first meant to entertain, and have a deep enriching story first. The animation is poor from time to time, but that's merely because it was made in the early 2000's if I'm not mistaken. The animation in Shippuden, from what I'm led to believe is even better. I think the only legitimate complaint about this show is it's voice acting, which I will concede, can be downright awful from time to time. That being said, everything else I brought up is still pretty good.
Naruto is overrated, and is average at its best

In this debate, me and my opponent will argue about Naruto, the series as a whole. I am currently still watching the show and am midway shippuden, and I don't read the manga (which might be slightly better in quality). By "average" I mean that this story wasn't written out decently, that it's a mixture of both good and bad ideas, and that in the end, even the biggest fan is left with quite a few serious iissues. The show is very repetetive as well. There is no true BoP for this debate, I will simply list the things that could have been better, and my opponent will list the things that would make this show fantastic (as in deserving the attention it currently gets). The voters will then decide if tCon has succesfully defended Naruto, or if I have brought you to doubt about Naruto. Good luck to my opponent! Please accept in the first round, tell me how much you've seen of the anime and how much you've read of the manga! No sourcing either, as we both watch the series and will know if the other one is making things up. If possible, try not to spoil it for me... Currently watching Sasuke vs Danzo
Naruto is overrated, and is average at its best

Firstly, I'd like to apologize. I was in no way trying to be inconsiderate. The format for debates on this website are merely different than what I'm used to on my debate team at school. That being said, I think I still have some learning to do as far as debating on this website goes, so I'm afraid I will have to forfeit. I apologize for wasting your time, and hopefully I'll be able to figure out the format in the future.
vote

I believe that people in line must be allowed to breath for various reasons. One being it is necessary to their function of life & without that, there would be no reason in which to stand in line anyway. Even without this requisition of continued life I also believe an all out halt on the process of breathing in line could & would be detrimental to the homeostasis of said line. I do agree it is unfortunate that our current technological advancements have yet to provide our species the opportunity to surmount this most grave & controversial of epidemics. Yet to allow the severity of this issue along with it's divisive nature to somehow justify genocide &/or mass suicide may prove to be insanely irresponsible not just for the people in the line, but for all those outside it as well. This is undoubtedly one of the most pertinent inquires of our time as it has been since the dawn of civilization when lines were first used. I have no doubt that I have omitted many integral & enlightening perspectives that pose sway over the result of this debate, but also hope that I have laid the groundwork for future generations to continue this most prestigious of fights.
A priori knowledge exists.

I am challenging following statement of my opponent: "All bachelors are unmarried men is an example of a priori knowledge". p1: A priori knowledge is knowledge that can be obtained without any expirience p2: If one never saw marriage or heard of marriage, he can not know what it is. p3: If one never saw men or heard of men, he can not know what men are. c1(p1+p2): One can not know what unmarried men are a priori. c1(p1+p3)I am challenging following statement: "You don't need sense experience to determine that this statement is true, meaning it is necessarily a priori. " I learnt that bachelor = unmarried men is true by reading - trough my eyes - with expirience. I claim that I would not not know this statement is true without expirience. And I am asking my opponent to name a possible way. I am challenging my opponent's statement that A=A" is a priori knowledge:Statement "If two entities represent the same thing, they're necessarily equal to each other" is true - by the law of logic A=A. But we can't know A=A is true. If we tried to prove it with statement "If two entities represent the same thing, they're necessarily equal to each other", that would be circular reasoning. Same goes for other laws of logic. We can not KNOW they are true. We only ASSUME they are true.
A priori knowledge exists.

Synthesization of experienceNatural selection (or whatever floats your boat) has embedded within humans an incredible a priori conceptual framework for making sense of reality. Take a given experience: sitting in a lecture room. Our senses give us the speaker, the podium, the color of the walls, the chalkboard, the dimensions of objects in the room, various smells, sounds, colors and a million other phenomena. Somehow, we synthesize this vast array of phenomena into a meaningful experience, and more remarkably, the process is continuous; as external objects change or as we tilt our head, through the passage of time our mind renders the enormity of sense phenomena intelligible. Sense experience allows colors and such to enter our head but it doesn't go nearly far enough in explaining how we synthesize the various phenomena into a coherent whole. All bachelors are unmarried men. This is an example of a priori knowledge because it is purely analytic. It's true by definition; if someone's a bachelor, he is a man and unmarried. You don't need sense experience to determine that this statement is true, meaning it is necessarily a priori. A = AWe don't need experience to tell us that A is equal to A. If two entities represent the same thing, they're necessarily equal to each other. Possible worldsExperience can only give us knowledge about what actually is; what is true of this world. Given this, we cannot garner the notion of necessity--things being true in all possible worlds--from experience. It is only contingently true that Stephen Hawking is a very intelligent man, but it's necessarily true that 2+2=4 (there's no world where 2+2=~4). It's easy to delineate necessity from contingency which would not be the case if all our knowledge was gained solely from experience since experience by itself only gives us knowledge of the world as it is--not as the world as it could be but is not, or is but could not have been, or is not and couldn't have been, or is and must be etc...
A priori knowledge exists.

Definitions:knowledge - Beliefs for which valid evidence can be presented, or beliefs whose validity can be proven by valid reasoning.A priori knowledge - Knowledge that can be obtained without any experience.exists- Can either be registered by human's senses, or it's presence can be concluded by valid reasoning.Pro has BoP. Topic is resolution. Pro has to make arguments in Round 1. Con must not make a single premise in Round 4. Forfeit in Round 1, 2 or 3 means loss. Links can only be provided to back up challenged premises.