BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

Read this while listening to this video to get the full effect of the statement. Seriously.. Ronald, The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties by calling you by your stripper name, I did. ;) But you can't judge a whole debate by the behavior of a few sick, individuals like you. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole debate system? And if the whole debate system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our debate institutions in general? I put it to you, RONALD MCREAGEN! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen! VOTE PRO! http://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

My opponent has not provided anything with me to refute in terms to the topic at hand, but only has made crazed assumptions and trolled throughout the entire debate. His first rebuttal of my contentions was semi-ontopic, but I can only assume he accepted his own defeat and turned to blunt trolling in his own defense. I am not Ronald Reagan, nor will I ever be him.
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

Ok Ronald, I didn't ask you to make up a whole history of a complete loser??? National Forensics League? You are quite the story teller Hansel.This isn't soap opera time. Why did you have a mental examination? One doesn't go into having something as serious as a mental examination unless them, their peers, or authority (parents or teachers) think they are crazy. I am not trolling? I am receiving videos from you of murders. I am scared, that you, and Alexander Haig will come, and shoot me. This isn't a fiesta. This is serious. I would have to agree with my opponent. VOTE CON or you will be probably shot. I am sorry this had to get so serious Ronny, I should have known this would have come to violence. God Bless America
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

My opponent is persistent in claiming I am "Ronald McReagan", but I'm not sure such man exist. Reagan's full name was Ronald Wilson Reagan, not Ronald "McReagan". I will once state again, I am not Ronald Reagan incarnate. My name is Joseph Aaron Roy, student at Midlothian High School. I am also on the Varsity Debate team, of which I participate in Public Forum Debate, and I am an official member of the NFL (National Forensics League. ) I hope these credentials clarify my identity. As for the picture on my profile, it is not a picture of "Ronald McReagan", it is a picture of Richard Milhouse Nixon. I placed him as my profile picture because I always believed he had a bold, dignified look about him. My opponent also claims I sent him a video of a murderer, which I have not. My opponent also claims the main intention of gun control is to lessen gun crime and violent crime, which is partially true and false. Gun crime does fall, but violet crime soars in result to gun control. This can be seen in the crime statistics of the UK, Australia, and various high population countries around the world. "This is irrelevant. . Why am I even debating you? You are off topic, and have sent me a video of a murderer. Are you crazy? " I have not sent you a video of a murderer, and no, I am not crazy. The last time I had a mental examination, I was passed as a very much sane human being. It seems all my opponent has resulted to "trolling" rather than intellectual debating. I'd rather much have an intellectual debate rather than a close-minded fiesta of stochastic levels.
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

Ronald, I am impressed, but after all of this I still can't take you seriously. You have used terms such as " becoming quite fruitless." Who the eff uses the word fruitless? What is this a fruity vocab showdown? Ronny I would like you to answer a question for me. If you answer it right I will give in, and bow down to your cooperations. http://www.youtube.com... That is the primary defense for gun control, and I don't think you can even rebut against this because of your lack of knowledge because of Alzheimer's. I would like to thank Ronald McRegaen for debating this subject, and await his response to the ultimate question. Which I am sure will be "This is irrelevant.. Why am I even debating you? You are off topic, and have sent me a video of a murderer. Are you crazy?"
The death penalty is completely unconstional.

It may be supremely cruel and unusual, but the death penalty is protected under the constitution which is the premise of your debate. When somebody commits a crime he or she is no longer provided these rights. If that were the case, then it would be unconstitutional to have anyone locked inside of a jail cell for any given amount of time. Therefore, abridging the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not violated as soon as a perpetrator violates someone else's freedoms. It is constitutional and under the jurisdiction of the state to create and enforce laws to protect the rights of other citizens while abrogating the dangerous lives of others.
The death penalty is completely unconstional.

What will be illuminated in my side of this debate contradicts what the general American Assumes. In the 2006 Gallup Poll, 67% of Americans was in favor of the death penalty, while 27% were against it, and the final 5% voted "no opinion," I found this data on [http://www.govspot.com....] The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual, which means it can technically be repealed, for it can be deemed "unconstitutional." Also stated in [the Constitution] within amendment 14, I quote, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which basically means, (For those who don't feel like reading a lengthy quote from the constitution) that all people made into a citizen of the United States, or born a natural citizen have natural rights wherein they reside. No state is allowed to enforce ANY law that will contradict the privileges, and/or immunities of a citizen of the United States; also it clearly states that a state can not deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property. So is it technically fair that people can still be deprived of their life? I feel it is supremely cruel because of the way the act is bestowed upon the offender. The offender is first politically made a spectacle of by Journalists, or political leaders. The victim is forcibly tied down and injected with a poison, where the victim may still live for months, possibly years, with the impending fate of a slow, unethical death. The life of the offender becomes a hopeless blur, for he can not judge his date of death, and simply can not deflect his own death. Another reason that supports my argument is that the government has convicted people of capitol crimes on a regular basis. 1:6 convicts on death row are innocent, which was proven in one noted study with the IIRC. Now I do realize I am not a strong debater, but am trying to learn as much as I can. I hope I have provided you with enough information that supports my side on this topic. I will finally conclude my topic by saying that the death penalty contradicts the constitution, especially amendment 14, and kills 1 innocent person out of 6 people on death row.
The death penalty is completely unconstional.

Well, I feel sorry that you feel that strongly about the subject. What if you commit a small crime? For example, the cashier gives you $5.20 back when she only was supposed to give you $4.20 back. Are you denied the rights? I am absolutely sure we have all committed a crime, even if we did it un-knowingly. Does that mean we all are denied the rights of the constitution? Furthermore, I would like to say that you wholly evaded the story of Joan of Arc. Everyday, as I said, people are getting punished for crimes they did not commit, including capital crimes. These innocents surely do not deserve denied rights? In addition, I have not said once that somebody should not be placed in jail for invading someone else's rights. In fact I even offered that as an alternative solution to death penalty. You also claim that I have a mind to "frame everyone as innocent," I recall. However, I utterly disagree with that statement. I do not believe everyone is innocent; it is true we can not be sure if they are innocent or guilty, which means we should still be cautious. For instance, someone is convicted for murder, let us say. We can not honestly be sure if they had committed the crime or not. I agree, the Supreme Court, can not say "you're free to go," but instead should send them to jail, where at least it doesn't cost him his life, if he's innocent, or can he think about what he's done and do community service, if he has committed the crime. This is a just, fair punishment that protects everyone's rights, and his own, without violating the constitution. Additionally, you had better read the whole argument on my side of the debate, because you make a lot of poor remarks that I have already said. For instance; "If you had the mind frame that everyone is innocent then no one would be in jail and crime would be running rampant." As I have made purely clear, I already stated that I am against that statement, for I even OFFERED it as an ALTERNATIVE solution to DEATH PENALTY… I hope the big letters get your attention and you actually write a good argument on your side of the debate. For the reasons stated in all my arguments, I truly believe the death penalty is harsh, cruel, unusual, unconstitutional, and furthermore, un-just.
The death penalty is completely unconstional.

"Actually, what if the person is innocent? As I have reported, 1 out of six people on death row are innocent." The judicial courts did not rule in that fashion. If you had the mind frame that everyone is innocent then no one would be in jail and crime would be running rampant. Furthermore, I don't need to make long and drawn out arguments. Simply put, if someone has committed a crime, that person no longer has the same rights as someone who did not commit a crime. That is just simple fact and logic. Therefore, if you talk on rights, the man going down death row has the right to an amazing last meal and the right to die.
Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

Take a million theists.Ask each why he/she believes what they do.900,000 would reply They cannot possibly concieve or feel happy in a universe in which they don't at least have a meaning of life or reason for existing. They need to feel part of osmething, their religious family, a church or somethign of that nature. They don't care if God makes no sense they only care that it feels good.10,000 Would say 100% god exists and all others are idiots using deduction from miracles.the remaining 90,000 would probably have some super logical extremely unbelievably intelligently reasoned inductive arguments for god which leave 0.0000000000001% left for atheism to be true.Get the picture?What part don't you get?
Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

My claims are not assumptions they are facts of common sense. One cannot ignore the fact that people believe in someting for a reason right? Whatever the reason is at some point that person had to use reasoning skills to reach that conclusion. There are only two main types of arguments.Inductie areguments an deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are those that are proven to be facts. Inductive arguments have no definate facts and is questionable. Christians and other relgions when asked questions about why they believe in their religions explain their arguments and present their case of why you should believe to. The fact that their arguemtns contain no proven facts and is uncertain makes their arguments, arguments from probability. It cannot be denied that humans don't believe in things for no reason. They have arguments to defend their beliefs. These arguments may be inductive but they are still based on reason and logic.
Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

You make the unjustified assumption that belief in religion is based on any 'arguments' in the first place. In fact the evidence of how strongly people believe in their religion (enough to mass murder populations of opposing faith) indicates a rather stronger basis of belief (whatever their subjective reason for belief may be) than mere inductive (probability) arguments. You have fundamentally failed to address my point throughout and it tears your entire basis for belief in religion apart. Thank you.
Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

Con you are attempting to tell the truth. There is a difference from actually making a true statement and attempting to. As I have proven throughout defeating cons points, religion and belief in god are based on inductive reasoning. An argument based on probability. This is true do to the fact that most if not all religions can offer no objective facts, explanations or conclusions when asked questions like, How do you know your religion is right? How do you know your god exists? Do you have substantial proof that your moral system pleases your god if he exists? Lastly how can you be sure that humans were not inspired of gods to write their canons? The facts are they can never prove their case do to lack of facts. That is all the evidence one needs to come to the conclusion that this resolution holds to be true. Also all human beliefs have logic behind it. They are either logical or illogical but both share logic. There are reasons a person believes something. I've never met a person that believes in something for no reason. I want to ask con what does subconscious love have to do with anything? I also ask you to prove your points and fulfill your BOP because currently the BOP has not been met.
Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

Hey man I'm laying simple truth down.Belief in religion is nothing to do with logic or argumentation of any kind NEITHER deductive nor inductive. What I meant by terrorism wasn't that it meant they were right, it meant that clearly logic was irrelevant tt hem, their belief and faith was far deeper in the realms of subconscious love and devotion as opposed to any logical means of reasoning whatsoever!Thank you.
Political correctness is a good thing

This topic is very timely, and deserves to be discussed. I checked my opponent's profile, and was unable to determine his or her gender, so I will assume Pro is male since most members of this website are male. My apologies if I am mistaken in my assumption. As my opponent mentioned, it's my choice how I want to proceed. As such, I've decided to make my own argument: Political correctness is a bad thing and should be discouraged. This is the case for two main reasons: 1. It keeps us from building trust among those with whom we disagree. How can we ever trust someone who is hiding their honest opinions on a subject for fear of being labeled politically incorrect? [1] 2. Political correctness limits our ability to gain knowledge and ideas. If we're overly concerned how what we say or do will be perceived, we will tend to not speak freely, and therefore any discussion won't be advanced as far as it could be. This will lead to our ability to gain knowledge being limited. [2] Finally, I accept my opponent's concession. I now turn it back over to Pro. Sources: 1. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. . http://thelala.com...
Political correctness is a good thing

Voting In this debate, I don't care about points. I only care that the person I'm debating is saying what they really feel. So, I am automatically forfeiting this debate, and all voters should VOTE CON unless they feel strongly that Con did not say what they really felt.RulesThere are no special rules in this debate, other than saying what you really feel. It's first-come-first-serve for entering the debate. No rounds for acceptance. If there's a dispute about definitions we can work it out as we go. Oh, also, it's:-5 rounds-72 hours to argue-10,000 characters max-10 day voting period-Select Winner votingDebate StructureBelow I will put forward my R1 argument. Con can start their round how they want, either explaining why what they thought I said was wrong, or putting forward something else which they think is more convincing. Whatever they feel's best.And thank youto Con for the debate, and to any voters who vote.R1: PRO's argument 1. When you want to buy something, 3 things should factor in to whether you buy it: 1. How much you want it 2. How much it costs 3. How much you want the person you're buying it from to have your money. 2. The person-you're-buying-it-from's beliefs should factor in to how much you want them to have your money. 3. This should inevitably lead to a PC culture, because: 1. People who have non-PC beliefs and are honest about them will suffer economically, and so their influence will be marginalized 2. People who lie about their non-PC beliefs may succeed economically, but whatever influence they attain will not spread their non-PC beliefs. It will spread their lies. That's it. Hopefully the rounds will get longer as the sources of disagreement are narrowed in on.
Daily exercise in schools should be compulsory.

Exercise is can be tiring for those who are fit or not physically fit. Experts say that one should exercise at least 30 minutes a day nearly equivalent to one high school period. You all know how long and boring a high school period is. Exercising for more than 30 minutes will get back at you. back pains, burning legs, aching hands, bruised and blistered. This is surely last the whole day. Exercise being compulsory at school is just a waste of energy and time. Sure it might not be tiring for some people but for others it might be. So thats why exercise at school should be optional and not a compulsory thing for all students to do.
Daily exercise in schools should be compulsory.

Daily exercise is not only extremely tiring who students who are not physically fit, which makes up a lot of the population, but also very frustrating for those always tiring out and getting embarrassed. Imagine this case scenario: a student's morning is exercise, but he cannot do it up to standard. Then all the kids laugh at him - and he gets even more demotivated - and to a certain extent - bullying increases. This is looped again and again for those not of the best physical standard - creating a demotivated, and bored group of students. And whats worse, that's hard to reverse. Who wants that?
Sanctions should be imposed on the UK until it tackles its gay mafia problem

One of your main standing points, was that Mugabe said that the UK Government sent in this so called "Homosexual mafia." However, there is no proof of this and Mr Mugabe isn't really a trust worthy person. On the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index Zimbabwe Officials received over "1.27 Billion through corruption in 2012. You also said about when MPs were asked about this mafia, they quickly brushed under the furniture. Of cause they would do this because they know as soon as a person reads a headline saying ' Politician Deny's allegation of Homosexual Mafia' they will not read any more and they will think well obviously they did. This caused because of the culture, in the world, of the powerful cannot be trusted. So, of cause they wanted to not make a big fuss out of it. Finally If this actually did happen, you can't kick the UK out of the UN because they have veto power. On top of that you many countries have faults like worse than this we don't kick them out trade groups and put sanctions on them, For example; Zimbabwe. Also you have only gave one example of this so called "Homosexual Mafia" actually making an appearance. Just on an ending note what was the gain for the UK government in that attack.
Sanctions should be imposed on the UK until it tackles its gay mafia problem

You know there is a serious gay mafia problem in a country when foreign leaders are attacked by homosexual gangsters in broad daylight and the police do nothing about it. It seems unbelievable, but on his last visit to the UK, the President of Zimbabwe's car was ambushed by a ruthless gang of mattress-munching mobsters outside a London hotel, yet the authorities took absolutely no action against the gender-bending bandits whatsoever. Furthermore, the godfather of Britain's gay mafia, Peter Tatchell, who led the assault, remains a free man to this day. But that should be no surprise. The victim of the attack, President Mugabe, alleges that it was actually the British government that ordered the hit. http://news.bbc.co.uk... And we can well believe it because the gay mafia has got the British Government in its pocket. To illustrate this, when one newspaper dared to print an editorial which read: "Tell us the truth. Is Britain being run by a gay mafia of politicians, lawyers, Palace courtiers and TV bigwigs?" the Government immediately slapped it down and forced it to publicly endorse homosexual corruption in high places. http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.theguardian.com... So where does the gay mafia get its funding? Well, The National Lottery Draw is presented by screaming homosexual Dale Winton - that should tell you something. http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk... Meanwhile, 1970's singer and songwriter Elton John, who make no secret of being a roaring poof, channels millions of pounds to gay men through the Elton John AIDS Foundation. http://ejaf.org... The situation is getting worse and worse every year. Now its no longer safe for normal people to walk the streets with statistics showing that around 100 hate crimes involving gay men are reported to police each week. http://www.pinknews.co.uk... It is ridiculous that political representatives of a country so riddled by corruption should be allowed to sit at the same table as politicians from respectable countries. The UK should be removed as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it should be kicked out of the European Union and should have strict economic sanctions placed upon it until the British Government makes a serious effort to tackle its gay mafia problem. Thank you.