BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
United States citizens should not be denied the right to bear arms by government

You said: "You first need to know that the government does not intent on taking guns that have practical use. They want to enforce more strict rules against the purchasing of semi-automatic rifles. " I must first point out this is not factual, and you have yet to define "practical use. " Any gun you would use to defend yourself if a burglar entered your home would have practical use, even if it was as unnecessary as an assault rifle. I must correct you, they want to enforce stricter laws on guns besides assault rifles, but they want to ban the assault rifles entirely. Quite frankly, some gun control may be fine, but it simply cannot be done. Any attempt to prevent an American from ownership of a gun by the federal government is against the second amendment by definition. Which is here for you to see. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... You Said: "And these rifles have no purpose besides to take the lives of another human being and to satisfy testosterone ridden fantasies. " I agree that the assault rifle was designed to take the life of another human being, but why does that mean its only purpose is to satisfy testosterone ridden fantasies? Assault Rifles are an excellent foreign invasion deterrent, in World War II, Fleet Admiral and Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese National army stated he could not invade the United States because it was like " a rifle behind every blade of grass. " Is this invasion unrealistic? Today, Muslim extremists still dream of the day when they will once again control the civilized world, like they once did as the Ottoman Empire. Any invader wouldn't dare face a hundred-million armed Americans. Yes, we do have an advanced military, but as we've seen in the past few decades, Terrorists abroad have shown that they will attempt to attack us anyway. . http://www.businessweek.com...
teaching creationism in schools

For your solution to work, the school would have to offer every view, and would require a staff member certified to teach each class. Also, in my experience, most people only learn about one religion, then they follow it and assume that reading a book from another religion would count as an evil act. The exceptions to this are agnostics and unaffiliated, because they learn about religions for factual information, or occasionally fun. But I don't think that you'd want your creationism class taught by a non-believer. So, essentially, you will have to choose to sacrifice quality to lower quantity of teachers, or you could get preachers to teach the classes, but to have one for each subject would be very expensive, which means less money for other classes or renovation. The other big problem with your idea is that the amounts of material in each option are not nearly equal. If one were to take the course on evolution, then they'd have a good two to three weeks of material to cover, and even then they would probably be pressed for time. In creationism, on the other hand, one would read from the bible, and maybe do an analysis or two. Then they'd sit around and do nothing while the evolution students scrambled to finish their course. This would lead to rushed assignments and some ruined GPAs. That means students would be forced away from the harder classes in order to maintain their grades. Essentially, most students would just take the easiest class. And for the people who actually believe that theory, they'll have to put up with a horde of hecklers who are in the class solely for the grade. Is this the kind of class you want?
teaching creationism in schools

I'm going to try and avoid the usual arguments against creationism (ex. it's false) because, though it would support my cause, it would most likely cause this debate to spiral down into an argument over the validity of several origin theories. 'I think creationism is as valid of a scientific theory as evolution so it would as well be taught in schools.' Okay, so if creationism is just as valid as evolution, then is there any particular reason all the other religions are invalid? Assuming that there isn't, then we will have to teach every single culture's origin story. There are a bunch of them. And honestly, how could all of this knowledge help? Every minute spent teaching religion is a minute not learning english or reading. And this country is far enough behind as it is(1). Unless you propose increasing class time by a surmountable amount of time, we will fall farther down that table. However, if there is a reason other religions are wrong, and should not be taught, then our government has essentially said that one religion (You're referring to the christian creationism, correct?) is superior to all the others. Oppression ensures, and I'm fairly sure other nations wouldn't too happy with our classification of their major religions. This could very well lead to disputes and potentially war. Sources: (1) http://nces.ed.gov...
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan vs FDR!

HEY! Wake up old man! This is a rap battle! Are you trying to breakdance, or are you in your death rattle? I can’t tell if you’re conscious, maybe I’ve just beat you too hard But if you have anything left, get back up and on your guard! It’s sad that I have to drag you up and give a pep talk You forfeit so fast, you leave a whole nation in shock! At first I felt bad to smack down an actor in his prime But oh well! You’re back up now; I’ll beat your face a second time! See, you lack talent the same way you lack knowledge of policy You know how to spoil the rich but know nothing of democracy. I inherited the depression, it didn’t happen from me Not that this matters to you; you like to rewrite history. I’m the greatest president ever to rescue this free land You’re just a dancing puppet with a hard on for Ayn Rand It’s hard to enjoy winning; you pretty much beat yourself, whelp But don’t be scared: I’m from the government - and now I’m here to help!
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan vs FDR!

I’m used to rocky starts, Pearl Harbor started off rough. Like Affleck, the only thing you have to fear is you’re not nearly good enough. You ought to think more carefully before awakening a sleeping GIANT! Now I have to beat your face with my crutch untill you’re ADA compliant! Old sport, I find the constitution to be marvelously e l a s t i c ! Watch me stretch the law, I’m the political Mr. Faaaantastic. Oh shy Ronnie, don’t cry just because I get things done Here, chew on my electoral success like Wrigley’s - quadruple your fun! I’m FDR - say my name, cause it’s about to get real Saved Lady Liberty; now she begs for me to cop a feel. Power may not come free, but I never pay too much Allies won the world and split it; US and Russia went Dutch! My flows are iller than polio, leave you paralyzed from the mouth down. So make like a tree Ronald, this ain’t the 80’s McClown! You think you’re important? Oh please. My dog’s tinkle has more renown. Lift your leg, Fala, teach this fool trick-trick-trick-trick-trickle-dowwwnnnnn!
Rap Battle Ronald Reagan vs FDR!

Whats up there Franky hows the depression treating you? Your a pretty good example of what a president shouldn't do. Expanding government with all your useless agencies, it's no wonder hard working people disdain your presidency. I cut tax's and spending too, on the welfare programs endorsed by you, I wanted to let the people to help them selves and I bettered our economies health. In 1980 when I was elected I swore to tear down the wall the Soviets erected, a few years later the wall fell down and the communists all wore a frown. In 1932 you were elected and prolonged a recession into a depression, afterwards the Americans learned there lesson, keep the government out of private professions. I got a new deal for you Frank and hears what I say, when your big governments not around we see better days.
absolute truth

That is not what I"m saying. That is what you are saying. You are claiming there is no absolute truth and for you to say that is true, it has to be absolutely true, or you are not sure what you are debating. So overall, I"m saying there is absolute truth and you are saying there might not be absolute truth. //"There is no absolute truth. And I am fairly certain that this is the case."// //This is a more accurate description of my position.// Are you absolutely sure that is what you are saying? You see, without absolute truth we know nothing, and we don"t even know what we are thinking. Now for morality. Now none of these things prove or disprove absolute truth. We are not talking about morality. Morality is an opinion, without God. Now please explain to me how you can know something for certain without absolute truth?
absolute truth

Is everything you said absolutely true? If absolute truth doesn"t exist, that means you don"t know anything for sure, meaning you don"t know anything. Can you know something for sure? With absolute truth you can, but without it you cant. I can say everything you said is not true and you have no argument because you admitted you can know nothing for sure. If you didn"t admit this please explain to me how you can know something for sure. You making this statement mean that you believe in absolute truth if you believe what you are saying is true. If you admit your wrong, then the debate is over. Please explain how everything you said is true without knowing if it is true.
absolute truth

Morality is relative to the observer. There is no fixed morality, it is only in the context of the culture. For a primal tribe of savages, it is moral and correct for 30+ men to murder and pillage neighboring tribes. Under American Law, it is illegal for 30+ men to travel to Vegas to murder and pillage. The question is, what defines morality? If you talk about homosexual behavior in the context of the Middle East, the death penalty is in effect. If you talk about homosexual behavior in the context of the Canada, gay marriage is allowed. Suppose a culture thought yeast was evil. Not just person X and person Y, but the entire culture. True story.
Feminism Is Needed in America Today

Feminism is necessary in America today because women are still far more disadvantaged than men. 91% of rape victims are female, and 1 out of every 6 women has been a victim of attempted or completed rape. Furthermore, women are also underrepresented in media despite being roughly half the population, with only 29% of protagonists and 37% of major characters being female in 2016's top 100 films in the US box office. Feminism is frowned upon in society because people misinterpret what it means - many people think that it calls for better rights for women over men, when it simply calls for gender equality. Feminism is necessary because it can be empowering for women, and it needs to exist so that men will be called upon to face the consequences of their sexism.
The United States should conquer Africa

Blackvoid and I agreed to have this debate over Christmas break. I understand that he's currently busy, but I figured it better to send the challenge sooner rather than later, to better answer any questions. Specifications on the exact meaning of "conquer" and "Africa" will be elaborated on in the next round (don't worry, I'm not going to pull any semantic tricks.) Debaters are permitted to make a seperate debate to place their citations in, to save characters.And no, this is NOT my actual position, I am engaging in Devils Advocacy.I eagerly await your acceptance, Blackvoid.
should Marijuana be allowed in the USA

Thanks mike. For future reference, don't make debates that are only one round since you can't refute your opponent's case. Rebuttal Marijuana used on the black market - it wouldn't be, if we decriminalized it, like the resolution says. It can cause cancer - so can cigarettes, through the same mechanism - smoking. 1) People should be given a choice. If it doesn't hurt others, it's paternalistic to tell us what we can and can't do with our own bodies. 2) No risk of cancer if you eat it (bake it in a brownie, don't recommend just straight up eating weed) or vaporize it, rather than smoking it. 3) It has health benefits, for those in pain, that may outweigh the risks. My case 1) Legalizing marijuana would get rid of the black market. If you could buy it at 7-11, there's less risk that you could get marijuana laced with dangerous chemicals/fertilizers, it will be cheaper, and there will no longer be criminal gangs importing and distributing it. It would decease gang violence in Mexico, since a lot of gangs engage in drug smuggling. 2) Marijuana is no worse than cigarettes. The only reason it's banned is because of propaganda (Reefer Madness) that tried to portray it as a psychedelic. It's actually better in many ways, such as being non-addictive, and doesn't cause madness, as once asserted. 3) Most people do it anyway. In polls, 6 out of 10 people admit to doing marijuana. If it's legal, it's safer, cheaper, and we can tax it!!!
Abortion Should Remain Legal

Even if condoms and birth control are used properly, there is still a chance that one little sperm could slip by. There is about a 97% chance success rate of birth control, not 100%. If one or both people are drunk, it is technically not rape, it's just a bad decision. Giving one example of a woman who was raped who's still against abortion is not enough. Even if the majority of rape victims are anti-choice, then there are still going to be rape victims who don't want to carry around the seed of a rapist in them for 9 months and don't want that baby as a constant reminder of the incident and that the baby has a rapist's genes. Aborting rape victims' fetuses would reduce the future rapist population, because the genes would not be passed down. It doesn't matter if a rarity occurs that a deformed baby recovers from it's deformity, it should be the woman's choice whether of not she aborts it or not. I mentioned that it was "very moral" because you would be aborting a fetus instead of forcing it to cope with living every day with his/her deformity. Abortion can also be used for good because each fetus contains embryonic stem cells, which would provide great advancements in medicine. The bigger emotional trauma would be a kid finding out the he/she was an accident. Also, parents would probably love their child less he he/she was an accident. A fixed number of kids is not a good solution, because some people can't afford to even pay for one kid. The only reason abortion could be an emotional trauma is because of all the negative feeling made by the media, and very religious people. If abortion weren't seen as something to be ashamed of, then there would be less reason for it to be an emotional trauma. A human is capable of thinking, feeling pain, showing emotions, being aware of what's going on, and having relationships with other people. A fetus, on the other hand, is a pre-developed, cluster of cells that is unable to survive on it's own. In conclusion, I think that sexual education programs that teach the real facts would bring down the number of abortions needed in society. But if a woman gets pregnant for whatever reason and doesn't want the baby, then she should have every right to abort it.
Abortion Should Remain Legal

You said, "Condoms and the pill aren't 100% effective, and the people could have unprotected sex because of being drunk, it just happened all at once, or ignorant of sexual education. " I say: Condom and birth control are not 100% effective. However, you can get fixed. If done properly, it is 100% effective. For being drunk, the sexual partner is raping the drunken person, since you can not legally give consent when under the influence. For being ignorant, you should know about sex before you. .. do it. Also I'd think most people know if they may have a baby. You say, "The woman also could have been raped. " I say: There is currently a woman activist, whose name escapes me at the moment, who attends schools in West Virgina, speaking out agenst abortions. Her mother was raped, and her child is leading a successful life. Her mother stated that she couldn't have been prouder of her daughter. We have to give the child a chance to live. You say, "If a baby is deformed, then it is possible to detect later on in pregnancy, and an abortion would be a very moral thing to do in that case. " I say: It is possible to recover from a deformity. We are not talking about a common case though. Even so, if a deformity is what is the sole reason for abortion, I don't see how that is "very moral". You say, "Abortion also does good because it brings the population under control, and lets people plan out their lives better. " I say: We could pass laws through reformation stating you must be fixed after a certain number of children. There's no need to kill them. While it may help keeping population under control, there is no need to have abortion after abortion. Sometimes, people do it wrong and hurt themselves and the baby. As for planning out your life, that's hard to do anyways. Because, like an unexpected baby, life throws other unexpected things at you. Who's to say that the abortion will not cause prolonged emotional trauma? It's happened, You say, "What's wrong with that, is that the fetus is still part of the woman's body until birth. Also, the fetus isn't considered a person until it is formed enough. Conception is only a cluster of cells. " I say: You're just a cluster of cells. I can't kill you. Besides, if it has the chance to grow up, it likely will. That is a matter of perception whether or not it is a person. You say, "A logical answer of when a fetus is formed enough to be considered a person is when the fetus can survive outside of the body. " I say: Sure that's logical, but it's not practical. I conducted a survey at my school, and projected that 78% of the students thought it was a person. This is effective, because many abortions are with unplanned teen pregnancy. You say, "There could also be other ways a pregnancy could be a risk to a woman's health, which a C Section would not solve. " I say: I'm not saying that a C-section is the solution for everything. If there is a rare case where that happens, we have to consider the lesser of the two evils. Allowing a woman to die, or the baby. That choice should be up to the mother, and if abortion happens in that case, then it is to save a life, not to destroy it.
Abortion Should Remain Legal

Thank you for responding, you mentioned that condoms and other birth control will stop a baby from being conceived, but that is not always true. Condoms and the pill aren't 100% effective, and the people could have unprotected sex because of being drunk, it just happened all at once, or ignorant of sexual education. The woman also could have been raped. If a baby is deformed, then it is possible to detect later on in pregnancy, and an abortion would be a very moral thing to do in that case. Abortion also does good because it brings the population under control, and lets people plan out their lives better. You mentioned that it was the baby's body that is the issue. What's wrong with that, is that the fetus is still part of the woman's body until birth. Also, the fetus isn't considered a person until it is formed enough. Conception is only a cluster of cells. A logical answer of when a fetus is formed enough to be considered a person is when the fetus can survive outside of the body. There could also be other ways a pregnancy could be a risk to a woman's health, which a C Section would not solve.
Abortion Should Remain Legal

Observation 1: The resolution states that it should remain legal. So, if I can find one reason for it to become illegal, I should win this debate. You say: "It's the right for a women to do what she wants to her own body because of either unplanned pregnancy, deformed baby, or the possibility of harm to the woman from the pregnancy. " I say: Abortion is not about the woman's own body, it's about the baby's body. Unplanned pregnancy can be prevented through condoms, birth control, etc. So there is no need to abort the fetus because of that. A baby's deformation can not be determined as it is still developing, because it isn't complete. Like a piece of art. If it is possible to harm the woman, it wouldn't happen until it is time for it to be born. Have you ever heard a natural birth? It is very loud, and always painful. If it is life-threatening, they can have a cesarion section (C-section). Since I have the burdon of clash, and my opponent the burdon of proof, I do not need to present any points. Again, good luck.
Promoting consumerism has negatively impacted the quality of life in our country

"the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; also : a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods " merriamwebster.com I Con, state that consumerism has positively impacted our country. Consumerism means more people buying goods and services. More goods and services being bought means more jobs. If people just hoarded all their money, the economy would stagnate. Everyone would lose. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
African Americans DO Belong In Society!

Oh really? Let me list some names: Matt Baker Matt Baker is often considered the first known successful African-American artist in the comic-book industry. Charlie Sifford. Willie O'Ree. Bayard Rustin. Frederick Douglass. Matthew Henson. Jesse Owens. Johnny Bright. . https://www.google.com... Just because some people have done bad things doesn't mean ALL are bad.
African Americans DO Belong In Society!

I see you have copy and pasted one of your earlier arguments. I have one thing to say to you: Buck up, Shut up, or Back up. It means Grow up, keep your rude opinions to yourself, or prove what you are saying. Get new material. Imagine every one is ice-cream. Any flavor for any race. Although they taste different, they are ALL ice-cream. Also, how can I know if you are telling the truth about your trip? conclusion: My opponent has no factual base, was quite rude, and just insulting. I extend my arguments and remind the judges that con has said the same things in multiple debates.
African Americans DO Belong In Society!

I apologize as I have been busy with work. I was talking to Cisco CFO regarding business together in San Jose. Throughout my trip to California, I saw NO black people that were at any technological corporation or at Stanford, my alma mater. I did see 2 in a McDonalds but that was it. They seemed like misfits and looked suspicious. Who knew 10 minutes later the police would arrive and arrest them? Where are crime rates highest? Yup. Black Scum Neighborhoods. Who kills the most percentage wise? Yup. The monkeys. Who has the lowest income per-capita? You guessed it. Those ex-slave stable bucks. They would be better off in camps a-la Hitler or executed, and as President-elect Donald Trump said "What do you have to lose?" When dealing with exterminating monkeys... nothing