BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun control

1) Take away guns from the public The second amendment entitles people to the right to bear arms, and taking them away would clearly be unconstitutional. Also the fraction of gunowners who will use guns to commit crimes is very low, so violating the second amendment to take away all guns would still only make things easier for the criminals since such an act would more impact the public instead of criminals 2) Ban all guns? We cant turn the US into a nanny state to solve gun crime. There is a black market that allows people to easily get guns with or without the government's consent so banning all guns would not eliminate all guns in the US 3) States have bigger budgets This one was dropped as the Pro instead focused on how states could use their authority to shut down gun companies, which wasnt the argument at all. Therefore my point stands that banning guns wont give states more money to spend on people 4) Police have more time to fight other crimes This one was also taken the other way by the Pro. This point was that without guns the police could focus on other crimes, not whether or not cops would be killed. And again, criminals are the ones killing cops and these are the same criminals who have easy access to guns whether the state allows it or not. 5) Black Market Ok I have no idea what the Pro's argument is on this one because I cant understand his grammar, I think though hes saying that the states can eliminate the black market through new laws, but thats not how it works at all. The black market is any trade of illegal objects or substances that operates around existing laws, and passing more laws without any kind of enforcement will have no effect on the black market, which will always exist whether the state wants it to or not.
Gun control

Refutations against your arguments :"Gun Control doesn't take away guns that are already among the public".-> Laws to Laws. We, The nations, have enough power to retrieve the guns from public, which could be used for one's private purposes whatever it is and would be. The nations could set the laws for regulating the possession of guns either the Police do so.So, we could reduce the amount of guns persons already have."There will always be gun crimes because we can't tell whose crazy and who's not".->This could be a reason that Why I continuously argue about the regulations of Gun Control. We can't figure out who is in the crime situation,and who will do criminal behaviour, and who will be victims of it. So for, We need " Regulations ". By eliminating the possibility of doing crime with firearms, We will be safe than wouldn't."It is the gun companies spending that money maintaining guns and ammo, not the state."-> Company which will do the business whatever they want to do must have permission of state or the order of it.So, state or government or the kind of 'govern' can restrain it. They(The governs) could control the situations and the companies which are producing and managing the guns or arms it can hurt persons."Gun Control won't make police forces have more time to handle the things"->Truly, The police forces with armed-states in U.S.A are in the dangerous case that they could be hurt and even be dead for guns. because of it, They (might be usually, always) are in the armed-states with guns even with the body armour. U.S.A always in the menace of any kinds of terrorism including "guns fight". They can cope with any kind of armed-fight, so same to the case of "Colorado incident". "Black market of guns' distributions"-> Oh, I accept of it, obviously. But Governs do regulate of the individuals gun -possess, They couldn't get the gun for self-purposes. If they do so, That's the illegal and do against for law. Oh sorry, How can I rich the text bulk?
Gun control

2000 characters Ill make this quick 1) It can be argued that Gun Control doesnt effectively reduce crime http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.npr.org... http://reason.com... http://www.fff.org... 2) Gun Control doesnt take away guns that are already among the public, so if we pass the strictest gun laws ever seen it wont reduce the number of guns people already have 3) There will always be gun crimes because we cant tell whose crazy and who isnt. The guy who shot up the theater in Colorado wasnt a gang banger, he was a neuroscientist trying to earn his PhD. Gun control cannot stop crazy people because we cant tell who is crazy until its too late. 4) On of Pro's arguments is that with gun control less money will go into guns and that money can be used for other things. The market doesnt work that way though, limiting gun control doesnt help state governments have bigger budgets because its the gun companies spending that money maintaining guns and ammo, not the state. 5) The Pro's last argument is that gun control eases the burden on police forces, but issues with shootings and killings caused by guns does not make up an overwhelming amount of what the police devote time to. It is only a small fraction of what the police handle and since the effectiveness of gun control is disputed and limited, gun control wont make police forces have more time to handle other things. 6) There exists an entire black market specifically for the distribution of guns, and America is ground zero for this black market. Since criminals already operate outside the laws and there exists an entire market for weapons purchasing, gun control really hurts law abiding people who want guns for self defense much more then it limits criminals from getting guns for nefarious purposes. Out of characters
Gun control

For first, I'm on the Pro about " Gun control". The reason I'm on the side of is related with the rate of criminal and with economic profits of when we accede to Gun control. First above all, we need to know about the rate of criminal which is emanated by guns. In 2005, In America, 11,346 persons were killed by firearms and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with firearms. That could tell us the possibility that if we make "Gun control" more hard to pass than before, might be, at least 10,000 persons wouldn't be dead, at least 300,000~400,000 persons wouldn't be harmed or be victims of a crime related with guns. That means, "Gun Control Regulations" being rigorous, We could have more producible manpower and this will make us greater than before. About, Economic aspects, The cost of making firearms and of managing "Individual Arms for self-defending or for hunting-guns" is too big. As you know, The cost of producing and managing all sort of 'bullets and guns" is enough big to support the other politics that would help the community you are in. In other words, "More regulations make more budgets, and it would be spent for supporting our community with some kind of welfare politics". And so forth,The security force wouldn't be put in the pot of fighting against firearm's crime or same vein of it. Like this, The force that could guard the city or politan would be a many so that the criminal rate would go down .
Lets debate about who is hotter, kate upton or Jessica alba

Thank you! I will be picking the side of Kate Upton.Due to no definitions in the first round, I will set it for you.My BOP is that Kate Upton is in fact hotter than Jessica Alba.Your BOP is that Jessica Alba is in fact hotter than Kate Upton.Hotter: Hotter will be referred to as more beautiful, genital sizes, and looks and personality.With that said, I look forward to the debate!
If you cannot look into someones eyes and tell them to kill themselves than you aren't friends

Hello, Thanks for instigating this debate and I hope I can learn something, as the topic is unexpected and seems contradictory, but hey, maybe not...Let's begin:Case:Contention 1: Telling someone to kill thmeselves in a non joking manner is hurtfullA friend is someone you hold dear and respect. Truely telling someone to kill themselves means that you consider them as worthless and makes them think you dont care about them, like a real friend would. I would be hurt if one of my friends told me to kill myself...
Ron Paul would be a better president than Herman Cain

Although it is ultimately up to the voter, I have agreed to encourage voters not to vote on sources.Economy1. Paul predicted the great recession; Cain claimed there would be no recession. [1] It is vitally important for a president to understand what causes recessions and depressions as it allows the ability to fix the current problems and avoid those situations in the future. 2. Paul's "Plan to Restore America" addresses taxation, spending, monetary policy, education, entitlements, regulation, and foreign policy;[2] Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" addresses taxation.[3] Paul has a plan to restore America and Cain has a plan to address taxation and nothing else. 3. Paul's "Plan to Restore America" would cut 1 trillion dollars from the deficit in the first year;[2] Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" would "drive up deficits to the worst point since World War II."[4] The biggest downer on our economy is debt. Addressing this should be the main priority; not raising taxes on middle and low income households to help out the rich while creating new debt. 4. Paul's "Plan to Restore America" would balance the budget by the third year;[2] Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" would never balance the budget.[4] Read 3 5. Paul's "Plan to Restore America" would cut taxes for every one;[2] Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" would raise taxes on 84% of U.S. households "and the impact would be felt most heavily by the lowest income groups."[5] Cain’s website reads, “Currently, the federal government taxes too much and too often. Meaningful tax reform should be implemented immediately to alleviate that suffocating tax burden placed on businesses and individuals in America.”[6] If Cain understands this, why would he have a plan that would raise taxes on 84% of households? 6. Paul opposed TARP[7]; Cain supported TARP[8] TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is a $700 billion program that purchased toxic assets held by banks. This program bailed out the major banks with tax payer money while tax payers lost their homes to foreclosure in record numbers. [1]http://www.youtube.com...[2]http://www.ronpaul2012.com...[3]http://www.hermancain.com...[4]http://thinkprogress.org...[5]http://money.cnn.com...[6]http://www.hermancain.com...[7]http://www.thepoliticalguide.com...[8]http://www.cnn.com...
Facebook is better than Myspace

I am going to say that both are actually detrimental to society. Yes, I agree with my opponent that myspace is a dangerous site. However, pro is wrong to say that facebook is safe and reliable. As pro stated, facebook has over 20 million users. But did pro mention that facebook is addictive? What pro is promoting is that facebook is better then myspace, yet pro wants to make people addictive to the computer. I'm not saying that pro is totally wrong. Facebook is a tool, it should be used only to keep in contact with friends that are not seen daily and family that lives across the country. Here are my contentions. 1. Facebook is addictive Facebook is taking over peoples' lives. A woman has stated she is on facebook for 3 hours a day, just looking at pages. How is this beneficial to the world? Its not. Now, pro is right that facebook is a great tool of communication, but its detrimental due to its addictiveness. As I have stated, its a great way to stay in contact with those that are not seen daily. 2. Social networking sites in general is bad for the world Pro is right in saying myspace is bad, for it has caused people to comment suicide in the past years. However, pro is misleading here. Facebook has caused its on damage on people. A man was fired from his job just because on facebook he posted he did not like a co-worker. That is like suspending a student for saying they dislike a classmate. How is that fair? It's not. Not only that, but a teacher was fired just because he put, on facebook, that he was gay. This is discrimination. This not okay, no matter who is right or wrong in this debate. Also, a woman was disgraced in her hometown just because she got into a car accident. A picture of her wreck was posted on facebook and the caption read "im not an alcoholic, im a drunk. " Again, this is not okay.
Facebook is better than Myspace

Sure they're both a social networking site. But which is really better? To me, Facebook wins because its a lot safer than Myspace. Sure Myspace has more games and features, but it also has spam, pop-up attacks, and stranger threats. Over the past year, a women commited suicide from a mean letter on myspace. Never has happened on Facebook. Facebook may have started out for just college students but it has grown to over 20million users. Myspace is a dangerous site and Facebook is safe and reliable.
Victimless crime laws should be repealed.

This is a continuation of a previous debate. Let's see if anybody can win on this topic. Our police spend a lot of their time fighting victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, and drugs. Nobody is hurt but the police are being overstretched for these crimes. The police could be elsewhere, fighting to help people, instead of hurting people to stop them from hurting themselves. Our jails are filled with drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers. Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded. If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly and people would not expect to get parolled and would be less likely to commit crimes. Plus, we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year. That money could go to other forms of crime fighting or anything else including lower taxes. Recall alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933. Home producers created whiskey and bathtub gin. The price of alcohol skyrocketed on the black market, which encouraged greed and inevitably violence. As a result prohibition did literally nothing to actually prevent alcohol from being consumed by the public. The government lost considerable amounts of tax dollars from bootlegged alcohol and it became impossible to regulate the quality, i.e. safety, of the product. Prohibition and victimless crime laws are very expensive, while being ineffective and causing violence. The Constitution uses the word "not" in reference to restricting government 22 times. The founding fathers do not support victimless crimes. They support a smaller government. In Amsterdam, when marijuana is legalized, usage was halved. Prohibition of alcohol made alcohol more popular. Victimless crimes make the crime more popular. [http:// www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm] [US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109] If prostitution, gambling, and drugs were allowed, we would see tremendous increases in tax revenue. The War on Drugs is immoral! If drugs were legal, then minorities would not kill themselves and others over them. You never see Targets having war with Wal Mart over territory, because they are a legal company, that can go to the police and report crime. The War on Drugs hurts young minority individuals who are surrounded by a culture where drugs are popular and violence is necessary. If drugs were legalized, those kids wouldn't go into those wars and would instead have a future elsewhere and lead more productive lives.
Federal deficits are necessary to a growing US economy.

Round two is constructive argument, round three is constructive extension and rebuttal, round 4 rebuttal only, round 5 closing argument with no introduction of new evidence or argument. No videos or photos (images of charts acceptable)Pro position is the hypothesis that: Federal deficits provide private sector financial surpluses without which it is impossible to sustain trade deficits or consumption and investment spending under conditions of economic growth.
Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood

Sui Generis was defined in round one and my opponent did not refute the definition. Fact and Truth are not synonyms. My opponent confuses Appeal to Authority with definition of terms. Belief is now synonymous with truth? My opponents entire argument is an appeal to authority because he is relying on a set of authoritative principles not shared by anyone else. “I say it is temptation, therefor it is.” No one is born a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, a rogue or even a Doctor. We are all born human. Among educated people it has long been held that in order to understand what one is trying to say one must know the meanings of the terms used. This is the reason for a definition of terms, generally done before any reasonable discourse. To insist that a fact is truth means there is no need in the lexicon for both terms. I reject that construct and would like to state that it is difficult to respond to ones apology if one has a secret meaning known only to the writer. Hence we use definitions from reputable sources. I know not how to respond to my opponent because, based on his own statements, what I read may not have anything to do with what he means. Ergo, I shall use the classical model of Aristotle and his terminology to assert that homosexuality is not just a behavior but is part of that which makes a person unique. All humans share that substance which makes us human. All of us have unique accidents which make us unique within that human group. Both Substance and accidents are particular to the human and not behavior. Attraction to the same sex is indigenous to those who are homosexual. In the alternative, Maslow’s needs puts sex as one of the most basic. Breathing, and food are also basic. Breathing is an involuntary muscle action, rather basic. Food is needed or we die. What humans eat is different, but we all eat. Sex is the same. I do not choose to like fried foods, I do as a result of my unique human characteristics. (that is not gluttony) As humans we can control our unique natures, some say, but even they know it’s part of who we are as humans. I tried to say what I mean and mean what I say, I am sorry my opponent could not do the same.
Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood

My opponent uses as an example "Derrick is a doctor because he chooses to work at a hospital diagnosing illness”. A person is a Medical Doctor because they attend Medical School and are inferred with a degree, what they do has nothing to do with it. Thus, my opponent fails to apply the logic he claims to be a rule. Definitions Fact…noun meaning a thing that is indisputable (Oxford Dictionaries) Homosexual…of or being having an attraction to same sex, form Latin HOMO meaning person Heterosexual….of or being attracted to opposite sex Bisexual…..Of or being attracted to both sexes Sui Generis….indigenous, of its essence; of its essence Logic….the discipline governing reason and/or thought codified by Aristotle not to be confused with Boolean or Mathematics All other words to be given their primary definition as commonly used in US English. Applying the definition of fact, logic dictates that agreeing to debate establishes my opponent’s inability to accept his premise. The premise is a fact. A fact is indisputable. Indisputable cannot be debated. Asking to debate negates the fact. Thus, either my opponent acknowledges that his premise is false, based on logic or, in the alternative, has made two contradictory statements thereby violating the rule of logic which states: When one has made two statements, both of which cannot at the same time be true, the opponent need not establish which is false to establish that said maker of the statements is disingenuous. In short, since the challenge establishes a dispute, that disputed cannot be a fact, de facto. Either it is a fact or it is debatable, cannot be both. Thus, you have lost by your own admission. Thank you. Please, take the next round to make your argument that Homosexuality is not the opposite of Heterosexuality but just a choice of heterosexuals.
Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood

I will be arguing for the position that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals. As opposed to an innate or inborn personality trait. This is not an argument about whether there are people who are tempted sexually by those of their own gender. Please do not accept this debate if you intend to argue that people are tempted therefore they are gay. The argument I am making is that there is no such "person" as a homosexual separate from a person who chooses to engage in a particular act or set of acts. For example: "John is American because John was born in America" or "Danny is black because he was born with dark skin" or "Jack is a man because he was born with male body parts." As opposed to: "Derrick is a doctor because he chooses to work at a hospital diagnosing illness," or "Sam is a baseball player because he chooses to play baseball," or "Junior is a homosexual because he chooses to have a boyfriend." Logic only. No arguments from emotion. I feel this way therefore... Be respectful.
Abortion

Okay I cannot argue with you about the fact that they are unconscious, but I can tell you this much even if I was unconscious I would still feel pain. Sometimes I wake up from a dream just because of the smallest amount of pain, now babies in the womb they are in a state of sleeping and the earlier you are in the pregnancy the deeper the sleep (plus the fact that they are not fully formed yet). Scientist have proven that babies while in the womb flinch when an abortion is happening there for they do feel the "doctor" performing the surgery, so therefore the babies do feel pain. Now I don't think that any one is ever ready to experience pain neither mentally or physically. There are people who join the army and come back from the war traumatized because of what they saw over there now they were trained to be prepared but no amount of training can fully prepare you for that. Same with physically people can train to endure pain but they can never be fully trained to understand that kind of pain. I am not underestimating that kind of pain but if they don't endure it now then when will they. I often say endure the pain now so when it comes around again you will be more prepared for it. (I am not heartless but I think if people aren't ready for it at one point they will never be ready for it until they endure through it)
Abortion

Just because a fetus is technically "alive" after 22 days doesn't mean anything. It only matters when the fetus actually becomes self-aware of its own existence and can feel pain. Plants are also technically alive, yet we mass-produce them and then ruthlessly slaughter them for food. Why does no one care? Because plants don't have emotions, nor can they feel pain. Realize that I am not saying that a fetus is worth as much as a plant; the potential for human life certainly makes a fetus worth more than a plant. And I do not promote abortions as a solution to every unwanted pregnancy; most unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility and lack of foresight. However, there are many cases where abortions are actually needed for the welfare of the mother, in which case it is more important to take care of the living, sentient being then the unconscious lump of cells. You seem to underestimate how hard it can be to be a mother. The entire process from pregnancy to childbirth to raising the kid is difficult. I'm not a woman myself, so I can't speak from personal experience but I know from other people that it is a big load to take on, and not everyone is physically, mentally, and/or emotionally ready for it.