BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our gun rights

Excellent points and I agree completely! I am all for background checks but the federal registry tends to make me nervous. I also agree that we resort to guns far too quickly in many cases. For example two people get into a fight and the loser doesn't take the loss so well so he decides to exact revenge with a gun. This kind of senselessness is absolutely unacceptable. The 2nd amendment was originally created to ensure that we the people would have the same force as the government so that if it ever became tyrannical we would have the means to fight back. Whenever a country begins to commit mass murder for whatever reason they always start by disarming the people thus making the people helpless. http://www.youtube.com... I would also agree that people are not as concerned about the loss of other rights as they should be. Freedom of speech is one of the most important and also the most quickly dissolving. America needs to step up and put the government in check. "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty" Thomas Jefferson The people have forgotten that the government is meant to serve the people, not rule us!
Our gun rights

Thanks! This is my first debate on this site, so I'm happy to receive some positive feedback. I think it's relatively easy to protect citizens and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals while still allowing responsible gun ownership. The biggest problem in the USA with regard to guns themselves is ease of access: it's ridiculously easy to get a license and purchase a firearm. Background checks do not unnecessarily infringe upon a citizen's right to privacy, and should be universal. A federal gun registry and mandatory inventories would also go a long way with relatively little impact on law-abiding gun owners and dealers. One of the biggest difficulties law enforcement have in the US is their inability to find out where a weapon came from, and thereby locate - and shut down - points of criminal access to firearms. However, I would argue that it's not just criminal access to firearms that's the problem, its the general proliferation of, and cavalier attitude toward, guns. Several people are injured or killed each year by young children who somehow gained access to their parents' weapons. In addition, both citizens and law enforcement are too quick to resort to firearms. The US has staggeringly high rates of deadly use of force by police and by citizens in self-defense (not to mention "self-defense" cases such as Trayvon Martin's case), and yet this hasn't made society any safer - quiet the opposite. A societal shift in attitude is required. Violence should be the last resort, but that's not the way it's treated. I could discuss the 2nd amendment for hours (wasn't it originally designed to help prevent the escape of delinquent and freed slaves?), but I won't because I know very little about the American constitution. What I would ask you is this: why are Americans (generally) so touchy about the 2nd amendment in particular? Nobody really seems to mind the violent crackdown on free speech (as long as they disagree with the views of those being cracked down upon), and there hasn't been much of a fuss about the erosion of rights to privacy, habeas corpus, and right to political and religious freedom in response to the terror "threat." The US still can't seem to figure out what it thinks about universal human rights (especially with regard to gender, sexuality, race, and religion), and continues trying to reverse the legal precedent that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life. Basically what saying is that there seems to be an undue obsession with the right to bear arms, far disproportionate to other rights, even those which are generally considered more important, such as the right to freedom of speech, thought, and association or the right to a trial. The US government awards itself the legal ability to murder American citizens at will without trial or oversight and nobody makes a peep, but as soon as you mention gun control everybody loses their minds. What do you think about that discrepancy?
Our gun rights

Secondly I have to agree with you on many of the points you've made. America has an atrocious problem with gun's stemming from many different sources that are the true source of the problem. A gun is nothing more than a tool to be used however the wielder wishes much like a hammer or a chainsaw. I too believe that it is far too easy for someone with mental health problems to gain access to guns as well as criminals for that matter. We desperately need to restrict these people from attaining any kind of firearm but there in lies the problem. How do you keep those unfit from getting a gun without punishing the rights of law abiding citizens? According the FBI's own statistics ( . http://www.fbi.gov... ) the murder rate has dropped every year from 1992 to 2011 proving that we are actually seeing a reduction in murders. While it's true that guns are used in a high number of murders it's important to note that these statistics do not distinguish between murders done in self defense or by law enforcement in the line of duty. Our society does have a problem with idolizing gun wielding heroes and thugs that make it seem like the life to live in the eyes of our youth. Our justice system is severely inefficient in dealing with the people unfit for guns but that does not grant the government the right to infringe on our second amendment rights. The amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " There has been a virulent disintegration of our amendment rights this past decade and we need to take a stand now and put a stop to that.
Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun

If you get money from local, state or the federal government in any form, whether it be a welfare check, Social Security, an earned income tax credit, a paycheck, whatever, your money comes from behind the point of a gun. There are few exceptions like arguably the government offices that sell you services to pay for what you do like driver's license employees. Another exception would be someone who has paid $1000 in taxes and loses their job and collects $1000 or less in unemployment. The minute they take a dollar more than what they paid in, they are accepting money that came from behind the point of a gun. Same with Social Security. If you pay in $25K over many years and accept $1 more than that, you know the rest. This debate is not about your need or someone else's need for the money. It is not about how valuable teachers are or how much charity the government gives out in welfare and food stamps. It is about how the money is collected. When anyone receives a check from the government, it came from behind the point of a gun. You have to decide if you can live with that in light of the facts. Do NOT accept this debate unless you plan to go the full 5 rounds. I am tired of debating with people who quit.
Reality shows create excitement among people, it is a good way of entertainment.

It's unfortunate that my opponent didn't propose any arguments in the opening message and then forfeited both subsequent rounds, especially given that it was my first debate and I was looking forward to a lively exchange :( I believe, given the circumstances, I have to win by default on conduct, convincing arguments and sources unfortunately. I want to suggest that I should also win on spelling and grammar given by the mere fact alone that I consistently capitalized the names of shows and that I didn't end any posts mid-sentence. Agreeing before/after the debate I leave completely to voter discretion. To my opponent: If you wish to restart the debate at a later point when you've got more free time to participate properly I'd be more than willing :) Thanks, Rob.
Brain over Brawn

You cannot survive without muscle mass. If you had no muscles, you wouldn't be able to get the water, food and shelter a person would need to survive. If you were in a jungle or Hunger Games scenario, you may be able to outwit your opponents, but you would not be able to provide for yourself or protect yourself. When migranes come to play, your left as a deer in headlights. With brawn, you can be self-sufficient, protect yourself, and intimidate others. Even if your not the most efficient, it will be sufficient.
It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

Con claims to have described how it is quick and easy to find other DDO members with high matching percentages. As I am sure all of you reading this would be interested in finding new members with matching percentages in a brief and simple manner, I encourage you to give Cons method a try (as Con has described during the course of this debate). Let us both know how it works out. Enjoy!
It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

Pro tries to insinuate that I did not fulfill the burden of proof because I could not provide 10 profiles concurrently, however in their resolution it never said that I had to find the matches concurrently, and therefore I should not be bound by that rule now! At this point pro has essentially conceded to defeat, and they are trying “dirty tricks” such as introducing new rules in round 4 of the debate.
It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

I think it is clear at this point that Con doesn't actually disagree with my conclusion that I introduced in round 1. "I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult and/or time consuming to find others with a relatively high matching percentage to my specific stances on the issues." In round 2, Con stated, "By changing my views I would find 10 users that exactly match my big issues views, and therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof." An intelligent person that is evaluating this debate would be able to conclude that the method Con has suggested doesn't actually produce 10 users with matching profiles, since by changing personal stances to match the second user immediately disqualifies the first user as a qualified match. This is my first debate here at DDO and I am disappointed that it wasn't taken seriously. Please keep this in mind when voting for conduct.
It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

While pro is correct in having posted their specific big issues views, they never said that I had to find 10 profiles matching their specific views. They simply stated that I had to be able to "BOTH easily and quickly find other DDO members with a relatively high "Big Issues Matching Percentage" (BIMP)", which I showed how to do! Please remember that in their resolution they did not write that I had to find profiles with high BIMP values relating to their profile, they only said that they were having a hard time doing so as expositional information.I have still fulfilled my BOP and I was never specifically confined to the specific stances in round 1.
It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

Under my search method, I would go to the top debaters page and open up 10 distinct profiles in different tabs. Next I would change my opinions to match the first profile that I opened. I would then change my opinions to match ther second profile, then change my opinions to match the third profile that I opened, all the way up to the tenth profile. This way, I would have 10, 100% "big issue view" matches. That could easily be accomplished in under 10 minutes. My opponent never specified that i could not change my Big issues stances to match the other profiles Big issues stances, nor did they say that I had to maintain that 95% BIMP rating for all ten profiles at the same time. By changing my views I would find 10 users that exactly match my big issues views, and therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof. I would also like to note that my opponent did not say that the 10 users i found would have to match their views, they simply presented their big issues views with no stipulations attached. Example:By changing my views to match the following 10 profiles big issues views, I could easily satisfy Pro's challenge in under 10 minutes. RoyLatham Danielle Kleptin JustCallMeTarzan bluesteel TheSkeptic Ore_Ele beem0r thett3 Grape In fact, through my method, I could have a 100% match with any of the 70,000+ members on this site, because you did not say that i had to do so concurrently.
It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

Con simply stated they could "easily find 10 95+% matches within 20 minutes." This does not meet the burden of proof. Con needs to show that an average user is able to "easily" perform that search. This would require Con to at least provide the method used to perform the search in order for the voters to decide whether or not, "an average user" could easily perform the search. Here are some additional arguments that support my position on this issue; 1. There is currently no "sort by percentage match" feature included in the advanced people search provided by DDO. This means that the only way to determine the percentage match of a particular user is to view their profile. This results in a very time consuming process when needing to search through thousands of users. 2. There is currently only one configurable search parameter when conducting an advanced user search. Since only one "big issue" search parameter is offered, it doesn't have a significant impact on narrowing down search results. 3. If the search was as easy as Con says it is, Con would simply provide ten user accounts that fit the criteria for my big issue stances listed in my opening argument.
It is difficult and/or time consuming to find other DDO members with matching "Big Issue Views".

I have been trying to find other DDO members with matching stances on the "Big Issues" listed on their profiles. I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult and/or time consuming to find others with a relatively high matching percentage to my specific stances on the issues. I would like to debate with someone that believes an average user can BOTH easily and quickly find other DDO members with a relatively high "Big Issues Matching Percentage" (BIMP) Round 1 - Definitions and Acceptance Round 2,3,4 - Arguments (As Needed) Round 3 - Closing Statements Definitions My Stances - "Abortion - Con "Affirmative Action - Con "Animal Rights - Pro "Barack Obama - N/S "Border Fence - Con "Capitalism - Pro "Civil Unions - N/S "Death Penalty - Pro "Drug Legalization - Pro "Electoral College - N/S "Environmental Protection - Pro "Estate Tax - Pro "European Union - N/S "Euthanasia - Pro "Federal Reserve - N/S "Flat Tax - N/S "Free Trade - Pro "Gay Marriage - Pro "Global Warming Exists - Pro "Globalization - Pro "Gold Standard - Con "Gun Rights - Pro "Homeschooling - N/S "Internet Censorship - Con "Iran-Iraq War - N/S "Labor Union - N/S "Legalized Prostitution - Pro "Medicaid & Medicare - N/S "Medical Marijuana - N/S "Military Intervention - N/S "Minimum Wage - Con "National Health Care - Pro "National Retail Sales Tax -N/S "Occupy Movement - N/S "Progressive Tax - Pro "Racial Profiling - N/S "Redistribution - Pro "Smoking Ban - Con "Social Programs - Pro "Social Security - Con "Socialism - Pro "Stimulus Spending - N/S "Term Limits - Pro "Torture - Pro "United Nations - Pro "War in Afghanistan - N/S "War on Terror - Con "Welfare - Pro Relatively High Matching Percentage - >95% Easy Search - If a random DDO user read the entirety of this debate, they would have an 80% success rate of performing the search, as described by CON, correctly. Quick Search - The ability to produce more than 10 results out of more than 70,000 current DDO users within 20 minutes.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

It is better to do that than not, Because you could potentially stop the shooter, Instead of no one stopping him and letting him shoot whoever. Plus, You are doing it for the greater good saving a bunch of people, Instead of saving only yourself. If I was in that position, I would not hesitate to take that risk. I'm glad I could change your mind. I will provide you with sources if you would like. I ask you to please finish out the rounds so it does not result in a forfeit so people can vote.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I don't think everyone should be armed. I still believe in background checks and mental-illness screening. So, If I have a gun and try to stop the shooter, I will have a greater chance of dying than if I didn't? Please explain the logic behind that. Gun bans have proven not to be effective, Such as in britain, Austrailia, Etc. Guns save far more lives than they take. Violent crime has decreased by 50% over the last 27 years. During this time, Concealed-carry went up.
Bush was the worst modern U.S. president.

My opponent is one hell of a debater. And although he can talk very articulately.. And has WAYYYYYY to much time on his hands... I won't give him the satisfaction:d! Now, I myself am not a fan of Obama. He's a Neo-liberal who is militarily aggressive, and like bush, he is a tool to special interest. And seeing how I was lucky enough to taken on by this guy, I was certainly expecting to be faced with quite intellectual argument. But the second, he spun out the phrase "Obamacare" he really lost my attention. Truth be told I feel my opponent is merely taking on this debate because of his politics. Most likely he is a drill baby drill, capitalist purist.. Most likely he really just hates Obama's "spending sprees" and has most likely called him a Marxist. Aside from my opponents red herring styled attack on Obama, he has failed to make a convincing fiscal reason why BUSH was NOT the worst modern U.S. president. In defense of Obama: http://www.whatisobamadoing.com... More stuff on bush: http://www.rawstory.com... http://original.antiwar.com... http://www.ocweekly.com... I must say I takes a lot of balls in this day in age for someone as good of a debater to come out and be a Gee Dubya man...
Bush was the worst modern U.S. president.

Im lazy so here we go. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://hnn.us... http://www.commondreams.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... http://wsws.org... Bush was a Neo-Con who exploited the poor, stroked special interest, exploited a religion for political gain, raged war under false pretenses, raged war on diplomacy, gave tax cuts for the rich, advocated for torture, ostracized all who apposed him. He was a tyrant and I wish to here a right winger say otherwise.
The earth is probably more than 10,000 years old.

In this debate, Pro will argue the evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years, and Con will argue the evidence that the earth is not older than 10,000 years. The debate is to be determined by the preponderance of evidence.Years are taken as units of time in the conventional sense as presently measured, not in an allegorical or poetic sense.The claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is part of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...] In this debate only the age of the earth is in contention, not other aspects of YEC.The first round is for acceptance and definitions only; the Pro case will be given in R2. All arguments must be presented directly in the debate. Sources must be linked from the debate, and not given in Comments or elsewhere. All site DDO site rules apply. Con may not introduce new evidence or arguments in the last round, because Pro has no space in the debate to reply.I welcome my opponent to the debate.
This statement is false.

I have no idea what my opponent is doing here. The resolution is, "This statement is false." By submitting that resolution, did he think that he was going to be able to select a number of false statements and then argue those? He needs to argue the original resolution, not some random one he thinks up on the second round because he realises that he hold BOP for a paradox. I submit no contest to his second round and await him to begin arguing the resolution. His BOP has not been met.
This statement is false.

Sigh. I accept. As PRO, BOP rests on him. If he succeeds in proving that the statement is false, he simultaneously proves that it is true, thus making it false and failing to meet his BOP. I have no intention of running a counter argument to this debate, for obvious reasons. If my opponent can prove the resolution to be true and false at the same time, he deserves the win. If he fails, not only must he concede the debate, but he must promise to never argue this resolution again. Good luck!
This statement is false.

The resolution was that: "This statement is false. " PRO presented no argument that addressed this resolution directly or indirectly. As both PRO and instigator, BOP rests firmly with him. He has not met his BOP and has therefore lost this debate. I'm sorry that the debate did not play out the way he intended and I commend him for concluding the debate in the way he has. I wish him luck for the future and urge you all to submit a CON vote on this debate. Thanks!
This statement is false.

Ahh, this clears things up considerably. It appears that my opponent DID in fact intend to make up his resolution as he went. A smart strategy to be sure, since his opposition would have no idea what they were opposing until well after the debate is under way. When I was a kid, I used to employ a similar strategy. It was called, "I'll ask you a question and you have to say yes, OK?". Oh the fun we used to have. Turns out my brother likes farts, wants to marry farts and IS a fart. Sadly those carefree days are behind us now, and this is supposed to be a serious debate. As such, there are certain constructs one expects to find, the first and foremost of which is a clear indication of the motion to be debated. PRO made, what appeared to be, a complete resolution in the form of a philosophical statement complete with definitions. I accepted his challenge and I now demand that he argue this resolution or concede the debate to me. I will even be happy for him to use this final round to present arguments as I have already stated that I have no intention of running a counter argument. Thank you.