BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

Sorry for not posting my argument earlier, But I am very busy this week (Such bad timing to start a debate when I have an APUSH quiz this Friday, A Spanish quiz this Friday, And a pre-calculus quiz this Friday, Lol). So anyway, Here are my points: I am thinking of some universal gun control laws, Which are laws that should be implemented in every single state, If not implemented already. 1. All states must have a background check on all gun transactions. Why: Because this is highly useful for sorting out the good guys from the bad guys. 2 Any person that has already committed a serious misdemeanor or crime, Violent or property, Should be barred from owning a gun. However, There should be a time limit so that after a set amount of years, Criminals will attain a second chance to own a gun. Why: Because criminals overall have a higher chance of a committing a crime again, So barring them for a certain amount of time would allow them to think for what they did wrong, And then maybe be given a second chance to prove themselves they can be responsible gun owners. 3. All gun sellers must have a permit with them, Including private sellers or sellers that don't mainly rely on gun transactions for a living. Why: Informal and improper transactions increase the chances of a criminal obtaining a gun. A random person shouldn't be able to sell guns to anyone; only licensed individuals should be able. 4. Implement a law that measures the degree of self-control in an individual. Why: Because self-control is a key characteristic for being a responsible and sensible gun owner. Gun laws are very strict regarding obtaining a permit for concealed carry, And as a result, People that have a permit to conceal carry guns are very law abiding. 5. Require medical checks for medical disorders/conditions, Such as depression. Why: Because this would greatly help reduce suicides as well as murders. I also want to remove these laws: 1. School weapons ban. 2. Out of state honoring licenses.
Gun Control

Before I begin my opening statement, We should both agree that we care about those who have fell victim to gun violence. Too often I see debates spiral out of control because of accusations of not caring about those who died. I believe that we all care about this issue and want to solve it and we just have different ways of achieving that goal. Regarding your first question, What states specifically need stricter gun laws? With each state or states, What gun laws need to be imposed and why?
Gay Marriage Should be Legal

I would like to steal one of you quotes: "We are the People, and we must, as a whole, be consensual as the governed. If we strongly dislike something the government does, we retaliate. " I love this quote! It is something I whole-heartedly agree with. However, this must also be true with society in general. People are tired of Gays not having the same legal status of straights, and so they are doing things. To counter your arguements: "So, being that Americans don't want legal matters involved in marriage at all, it's unfair to say that we ought to let these matters interfere with the marriage of homosexuals as well. "It doesn't really matter if the People wish marriage to be separate from the government because the majority may not even matter here. If 59% wished to take away all welfare, social secuity, and Medicare/Medicaid, this could not be done because, if it were, anyone relying on these programs would be dead in a month. The same thing would happen if insurance benifits for marryed couples were revoked because people rely on the Marriage Benifit Programs (MBP). If we were to look at Gay Marriage, its legalization DOES NOT harm anyone. Revoking Government Marriage Insurance Benifits does, and so we must keep Gov. and Marriage together, and then there are also no reasons why Gays shouldn't be treated the same as Straights. Your next argument: If your potential for having children rises, the state is interested. It helps the statistics. You are right that the state is interested in child creation, but this is not the point of marriage itself. Fertility should not be a factor as the infertile can Marry. It does not help to know that (gays),who have an extremely low chance of creating a child, are emotionally bonded. Extremely low chances? Wow. How about no chance. lol. As for Gay Marriage benifiting the state:. http://www.pbs.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Does this suffice?
Gay Marriage Should be Legal

Thank you, for though it takes a million to war and thousands to battle, it only takes two to debate.This is possibly my biggest reason for gay marriage legalization: there aren't any reasons why people should not be aloud to marry someone of the same gender.Several polls say that 53% of America support gay marriage. I will state sources if requested, though I doubt my opponent will try to argue against the number I provided.I estimate there to be roughly 30,000,000 (thirty million) people in the USA. 53% of about 30,000,000 is about 15,900,000. That is a lot of people who want gay marriage legal, and there is no reason against such legalization.
Gay Marriage Should be Legal

Round I: Accepting Round II: Arguments OnlyRound III: Rebuttals/ArgumentsRound IV: RebuttalsRound V: ConclusionI have had 3 debates, arguing over such important topics such as Batman's physical prowess, racial advantages during the apocalypse, and, of course, the Powerful Cosmic Llama of Power. I am now going to try my hand at politics.Gay marriage should be legal."Advance towards me, brethren!"---I'm pretty sure George Washington said that during the Revolutionary War.
why honda is better than polaris (fourwheelers)

ONE: honda is reliable just because your grandpa says it isnt doesnt mean he is right he is probably senile TWO: honda can jsut because it might get stuck every once in a while they get stuck it is probably because it is buied to the frame it is about inpossible to get somthing out THREE: like you said earlier about the color that does not matter color is the last thing you will choose when buying a fourwheeler FOUR: honda also is number one in ATV realiability and saftey
Iran and nuclear enrichment? Let's watch Iran.

wow ,seymor hersh is on of the best investigative journalists of out time. and if the grand ayatollah thinks something is bad then the country won't do what he think. THIS IS EVIDENCE the National intelligence estimate ( a govt organazation) said IRAN DOESNT have NUKES. GET OWNED and actually try to make arguments against me and not on sources that a monkey can see is credible.
Iran and nuclear enrichment? Let's watch Iran.

"Annals of National Security November 27, 2006 Seymour M. Hersh he said that The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency..." "Annals of National Security"? Please don't use those simple devices like capitalizing "National Security" unless those "Annals" you cite refer to official sources like the State Dept. or National Security Agency. Seymour M. Hersh is a known anti-republican author who has written many books mocking republicans and their policies. He has no credibility. "he said that The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program…" Same CIA that said Saddum was developing WMDs? You don't understand that in a closed, tightly-controlled society like pre-war Iraq, outside investigative agencies (like the CIA) can't really conclude anything most of the time. "also according to Seymour M. Hersh, THE NEW YORKER…" THE NEW YORKER? Another left-wing, anti-republican rag. "director of IAEA, has said time and time again that Iran is at least five years away from the bomb…" IAEA is a nuclear investigative arm of the United Nations populated mainly by anti-American European socialist. Oh, so now your left-wing sources say Iraq is developing the a-bomb, just not as fast as President Bush says they are. "even if they were theyd be years away we can see to be a watchdog over them would simply provoke them…" So your position is don't provoke Iran because they are years away from developing an a-bomb. Wait until they have one and then strike? Dumb. "Also according to San Francisco Chronicle…" San Francisco Chronicle, Seymore Hersh, "The New Yorker," IAEA? I'm starting to feel dirty…. "Also according to San Francisco Chronicle October 23, 2003 The Grand Ayatollah, Ali Khameini, has been stated as saying that nuclear weapons are a sin. …" You're deferring to the Grand Ayatollah about what is good and evil? Please tell us what the Grand Ayatollah thinks about suicide bombings and beheadings? I've heard enough from you.
Iran and nuclear enrichment? Let's watch Iran.

hello, OK this shall be fun i debated this topic for almost a month now first off Iran is making uranium into bars.these bars have 1 use and 1 use only and thats for nuclear energy. also according to Annals of National Security November 27, 2006 Seymour M. Hersh he said that The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. thus this claim is just plain false also according to Seymour M. Hersh, THE NEW YORKER, October 8, 2007, p. 40 El Baradei, director of IAEA, has said time and time again that Iran is at least five years away from the bomb. "Running three thousand centrifuges does not make a bomb" We can see that Iran doesn't pose an immediate threat. Thus if you take the two together that 1. they arnt pursuing nukes and 2. even if they were theyd be years away we can see to be a watchdog over them would simply provoke them. Also we can not afford to get in a conflict with Iran. According to Seymour M. Hersh, THE NEW YORKER, October 8, 2007, p. 40, if we got engaged with iran we would be in a quagmire for 20 years!! Also according to San Francisco Chronicle October 23, 2003 The Grand Ayatollah, Ali Khameini, has been stated as saying that nuclear weapons are a sin. The Ayatollah is the religious authority and THE supreme commander of military forces, if he says they are a sin, they will not use them. and if they will not use them then they will not make them. mahmoud adiminajad has stated that oil is not infinate and that alternative fuels should be studied, who are we to say something about a nations preperation for there future. Also lets look how Iran shouldnt be a top priority according to Newsweek Decmeber 8, 2007 Fareed ZakariaIran has been rationally calculating costs and benefits on the nuclear issues. In fact, Tehran has been less messianic and stubborn about its nuke development than Pakistan, India or China, all of whom pressed ahead with their programs rapidly and secretly. Tehran has moved incrementally, allowed the IAEA to conduct inspections for years and been sensitive to pressures and inducements from the west. also lets look how Iran is cooperating according to December 12, 2007 Reuters "Iran and a team from a UN watchdog ended the latest round of talks in Tehran on Wednesday aimed at answering questions about Iran's nuclear work. Experts from the 2 sides held 3 days of talks as part of an August agreement to clear up suspicions about Tehran's atomic plans. We can see that Iran is cooperating thus we would not be justified to be a watchdog organazaton over them. my last point because im tired is how they're organazations in place to be watchdogs NOT the US.... The united nations IAEA which is a UN watchdog over nuclear activities not only said iran was not a threat but also is regularly talking with Iran.
Iran and nuclear enrichment? Let's watch Iran.

The US State Dept. anti-Bush people say Iran suspended nuclear enrichment in '03. A consensus of UN European anti-American socialists say Iran suspended their uranium enrichment program at about the same time. NEWS FLASH 2007: Iran says they will not suspend their uranium enrichment program. Nuclear power plants do not require "enriched" uranium. As far as I can see, enriched uranium is not needed for any other purpose than to create "fissionable" material. Fissionable material is need to make an atomic bomb.
Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost.

So, as we've both stated repeatedly, we agree that humans are at least in part responsible for climate change, and that it will impact the economy if measures are taken to stop it. But once again, we have to make that choice. After all, every business regulation in some way hurts the economy, but we still have business regulations. Why? Because at the end of the day, we know that sometimes, the economy isn't always first priority, and this is one of those times. And yes, we can start using renewable energies. That day is coming sooner than later. And no, for the last time, it is not a non existent problem. You should watch Al Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth." BenD, thanks for this debate. I've had fun debating with you, I'm glad I accepted this.
Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost.

For the last time let me say that I absolutely agree that adding greenhouse gases to the air will make the earth warmer. That is a fact. Therefore the first article you presented is unnecessary. We all agree that more greenhouse gases will make the earth warmer.We also agree that trying to stop global warming will damage the economy.This leaves one question for you the judge to determine. Is it worth economic damage to try and stop global warming?As far as Islands go, IF the article you presented is right about the fact that the Marshal islands will disappear if the earth gets 2 degrees warmer, and IF warming continues unchecked at its current rate, the people who live on the Marshal Islands will need to vacate the island some time in the next 100 years. Also, being right about the 2 degrees number is a big if. Even the article itself said it was "likely." I don't claim to be an expert, but I can't imagine how they could get that number. The fact remains that the worst case scenario is that the island will be gone in the next 150 years.Now, let me explain why I don't think reducing our gas emissions is not worth economic damage. As I have shown with hard numbers our impact on the earths climate is negligible. 75% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor which we have no control over. Carbon dioxide which is by far the largest piece other than water accounts for less than 3%. Of the 368,400 ppb of carbon dioxide in the air, we have only contributed 11,880. That means that if we stopped producing ANY carbon dioxide (which would mean stopping all industry, not burning anything and not breathing for that matter), we could reduce by a fraction the carbon dioxide in the air which is a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect. In other words, though reducing carbon dioxide and other gases would reduce the temperature, we cannot realistically make a noticeable difference in the climate. We can only damage ourselves trying to do the impossible and unnecessary.The other factor is that the warming is not a serious problem. It is happening, but at the rate of 1.53 degrees over 100 years. Again, that means that if we let global warming go unchecked for 500 years, the earth will be warm enough to increase the growing season and help farmers.Now, I hope that sometime in the somewhat near future we can harness wind, solar etc. enough that we can reduce our carbon footprint without damage to our country, but that day is not here. We can afford to wait. We are having almost no effect and the earth is getting warmer by a negligible amount. Trying in vain to solve that non existent problem is certainly not worth economic harm.In closing I would like to point out that everything I have said is backed up by scientific fact. I have presented factual, irrefutable research showing the reality of what is happening. It is for you the judge to decide if it is a big enough problem to justify damage to our country. I say no.
Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost.

Yes, actually I do have science on my side. Humans burning fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming. I'll leave a link proving this below. https://www.edf.org... And your right, I do believe that there would be damage to the economy if we passed laws to limit green house gas emissions I 100% believe that is true. But the whole point of this debate is that the world's governments need to prioritize climate change over minor economic damage. Oh yeah, and global warming is not "a tiny problem that might happen a few thousand years from now." Tell that to the many island nations that could be gone soon as a direct result of climate change. There are many examples of this, and if you don't believe me, click the link below. http://www.cnn.com...
Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost.

OK. First of all, I never said our emissions did not cause warming. In fact I said that clearly adding carbon dioxide to the air would, in fact, raise the temperature. However, I gave hard numbers that show how tiny of an impact we really have. To prove this, I provided a scholarly, factual article full of statistics. To counter this, you provided a one paragraph long opinion Peace. YOU claim to have science on your side?As far as the common claim that all scientists support global warming, I have provided an article which deals with that myth. It also has a great video of Ted Cruz demolishing a witness who know nothing about the topic and fell back on that same myth.You again claim that the policies we are debating would have a significant impact on the climate. Judges, please refer to the article I gave you last time, which clearly disproves that idea. To show even farther that these policies are both unneeded and unhelpful, I would like to give you another number. According to the UCAR, an organization on your side of this issue, the average temperature of the earth has gone up by exactly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit. At this pace, in 1,000 years from now it will be a whopping 15 degrees warmer! This might be warm enough that the sea would rise a matter of inches, but on the other hand, the growing season would be longer, so farmers would be happy. For THIS you want us to panic and hurt our economy??My opponent admits that there would, in fact be significant damage to this country in the process of stopping global warming. In light of the facts I have provided, his comment about the "destruction of our planet" is frankly laughable.Your job judge, is to decide if this is worth it. Shall we damage our country in order to have almost no effect on a tiny problem that might happen a few thousand years from now? I say no.1. http://www.nationalreview.com...2.https://www2.ucar.edu...
Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost.

You are completely wrong when you said that human green house gas emissions are not responsible for global warming. All the world's scientists are in almost unanimous agreement that our own green house gas emissions cause global warming. Ignoring this fact is a denial of science itself. This is my source. https://www.nwf.org... And yes, changes we make will have an impact on global warming. If laws are passed to reduce these emissions, it would slow global warming. Not stop it, but slow it down significantly. And about the economic aspects; there's no way to get around them. It will hurt businesses and tax payers, but given the choice between the destruction of our planet and a few spent tax dollars and a few hurt businesses, I would chose the latter.
Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost.

It sounds like my opponent agrees that the economy is harmed by policies that try to reduce global warming. The issue for you the judge to decide is whether that cost is too much in comparison to the benefits of these policies. In order to decide that, you must first understand what we stand to gain by reducing our carbon footprint.The theory of global warming is based on the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases in our atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, trapping the heat from the sun that would otherwise reflect off the earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, life could not survive on earth. Theoretically, if there were too much of those gases in the air, they would trap too much heat and the earth would get too warm. This would cause the ice to melt, which would flood us all.The question we must answer in this round is this: Is mankind causing the greenhouse effect to go out of control? The answer is no. Carbon dioxide accounts for less than 3% of the greenhouse effect. Before the industrial revolution, the carbon dioxide levels were 288,000 ppb. Since then, between human actions and natural additions, carbon dioxide has increased to 368,400 ppb. Mankind has had very little impact on the greenhouse effect.This means that if the entire world in the name of global warming ground all industry to a halt and went back to the stone age, we could reduce our carbon footprint by 11,880 ppb. This would reduce by a tiny fraction the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, which is a a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect.Any changes we make will have little to no impact because let's just face it, we don't have a huge impact on the world's temperature. No matter how much we harm our economy we will never change the climate by more than a degree or two.If these policies have little to no effect, are they really worth significant damage to our economy?My numbers came from http://www.geocraft.com...