BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun rights

==Final Rebuttal== "This is not in keeping with standards already established in this debate as natural rights" Rights cannot exist without someone wanting to take them away. Even if they are natural rights. "“These are rights that all people have at birth. The government does not grant these rights, and therefore no government can take them away. ”" My apologies, I did not see that claim. Allow me to "refute" it then. As mentioned before, rights cannot exist without someone wanting to take them away. The native americans for example. They just about used natural law as their law. However, the government came and took them away, forcing them to move around the continent. Even if you have natural rights, there will be someone to take them. The claim "government can't take natural rights" is infact false. Another example would include gays in the middle east. Anyone gay in the middle east is killed, thus taking away the natural right of "life". You can infact, take away natural rights. "Sure, so does owning an Atomic Bomb…" However you only said owning an atomic bomb, NOT using it. Thus, one can own an atomic bomb without taking the rights of others. "People should be free to pursue what makes them happy" Despite your previous claims. "does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness. " It seems somewhat contradictory. ==Conclusion== To conclude, natural rights are granted by one naturally, however they can be taken away. The right to bear ANY arms are granted by the U. S Constitution and therefore, you are allowed to own many different types of arms. However the government has limited arm usage and what arms you can use. I have defined all types of arms, I have shown you can infact own a grenade, a cannon, a sword, and a handgun. I have defined arm as well. The "atomic bomb" argument has been established as well as the "natural rights taken" argument.
Gun rights

Final Rebuttal Pro says “I'd like to claim my opponent didn't specify if it could be live or dead. He simply said "grenade". This could be live or dead. Thus, I am still right. ” It wasn’t a question of if you were right or wrong to say live or dead. Rather, to ask if it is a right to "bear" a live grenade. I asked if my opponent thinks that owning his own personal Atomic bomb is his right? " he says “It is his right. However when rights are given, it won't be long until they are taken away. ” This is not in keeping with standards already established in this debate as natural rights. In the second round I presented the following… “These are rights that all people have at birth. The government does not grant these rights, and therefore no government can take them away. ” Pro never refuted this. Thus if ownership is a natural right…. The government cannot give or take that right away. I said in the last round liberty and pursuit of happiness could be applied to the action of rape… To which pro responds “Not quite. Rape takes away the liberty and pursuit of happiness of another person, thus violating their given rights, which in turn is illegal. ” Sure, so does owning an Atomic Bomb… Pro attempts a staw man asking “Are you claiming we should not give people liberty to do what they want and be happy? ” I will keep this simply, no I did not say or imply anything close to that. What I said was Just because one person finds something enjoyable and has, on balance, “liberty” that does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness. People should be free to pursue what makes them happy… provided the rights of others are not affected. My neighbor owning an atomic weapon would certainly affect the dynamic of our neighborhood no? Conclusion: Unfortunately I do not feel this debate covered what I initially intended… that stated. Accepting Pro’s definitions of natural, natural law, and natural right excludes ownership of a gun. This is the case because Pro said that natural is outside of human activity. Ownership of guns is human activity. Thus Gun ownership is not a “natural” right. The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms. ) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms. ” Being that the last round does not allow for new arguments and As pro has not substantiated adequately what “arms” are protected and which are not… (or connected the phrase arms to guns specifically) we can only assume that he means all arms. This is supported by his statement accepting all the things I listed as “arms. ” Pro’s stance that the owning of “arms” including Atomic bombs are protected natural rights is ludicrous, and not practically defendable. The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically.
Gun rights

==Rebuttal=="This is obviously not the same as owning a live grenade."I'd like to claim my opponent didn't specify if it could be live or dead. He simply said "grenade". This could be live or dead. Thus, I am still right."Does my opponent think that owning his own personal Atomic bomb is his right?"It is his right. However when rights are given, it won't be long until they are taken away."liberty and pursuit of happiness could be applied to the action of rape"Not quite. Rape takes away the liberty and pursuit of happiness of another person, thus violating their given rights, which in turn is illegal."As such, Just because one person finds something enjoyable and has, on balance, “liberty” that does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness. "Are you claiming we should not give people liberty to do what they want and be happy?==Argument==ii. Granted by law made by humansExtended argumentDespite the fact laws have been made to try to remove guns, we still have our right to own them. Even self defense laws have been made that support the second amendment. A good example would be the "Stand your ground" laws.[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Even organizations have been made to protect the law that was granted to us by humans.[http://en.wikipedia.org...]The NRA often hires lawyers to help others that are caught in court involving a gun crime where he used self defense.==Full argument==The U.S.A Constitution is the "supreme law of the U.S.A"[http://en.wikipedia.org......]Taking the quote as said above by Con..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."One can now assume, it is indeed a right granted by a law made by people as well. At the end it even states "shall not be infringed" meaning it will always be a right.Despite the fact laws have been made to try to remove guns, we still have our right to own them. Even self defense laws have been made that support the second amendment. A good example would be the "Stand your ground" laws.[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Even organizations have been made to protect the law that was granted to us by humans.[http://en.wikipedia.org...]The NRA often hires lawyers to help others that are caught in court involving a gun crime where he used self defense.==Conclusion==I have shown evidence that it is our right to own arms via constitution, organizatoin, and through laws made by people. It is indeed our right to own arms as given to us by nature and the Constitution itself. To close, enjoy this picture
Gun rights

Rebuttals:Pro says “Ownership isn't just a human activity.” Certainly Gun ownership is specific to human activity. I maintain that Gun rights are obviously and empirically not compatible with my opponent’s definition of a Natural right. Pro seems to feel that “arms” does imply all of the things I listed, although he does say “Even then you can own a dead grenade.” This is obviously not the same as owning a live grenade. He concludes by saying… “Last, but certainty not least; you can own a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, etc.” Pro seems to be skirting my contention. My contention is that if “arms” is to include all weapons, and my opponent feels that the “right to bear arms” is inclusive of all arms. Does my opponent think that owning his own personal Atomic bomb is his right? That is a loaded question, because I cannot conceive a person who would think that would be reasonable. However, my follow up question is the important question. If not, and the phrase “Arms” does not include all types of weapons, where is the line for which “arms” we have a “right” to own, and which do we not have the right to own? Pro proceeds to define "arms" " A weapon, especially a firearm" I accept this definition. I ask the same question, Does our “right” to “bear arms” include all weapons? If not, how do we distinguish which are included and which are not? i. (Extended) Is owning a gun a natural right? Pro says “Looking at the Declaration of Independence here, liberty and the pursuit of happiness show how owning a gun is a natural right. I'll show you with liberty first.” This argument is rather specious. As an extreme example…. I am sure there are those out there who would say that the liberty and pursuit of happiness could be applied to the action of rape in the same way that my opponent has applied it to gun ownership. As such, Just because one person finds something enjoyable and has, on balance, “liberty” that does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness. Conclusion: As pro has not overcome my previous conclusion I will conclude as I did last round. Accepting Pro’s definitions of natural, natural law, and natural right excludes ownership of a gun. This is the case because Pro said that natural is outside of human activity. Ownership of guns is human activity. Thus Gun ownership is not a “natural” right. The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms.) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms.” The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically.
Gun rights

Rebuttal of round one i. Is owning a gun a natural right? I accept the definitions of natural right and natural law provided by my opponent. “These are rights that all people have at birth. The government does not grant these rights, and therefore no government can take them away. The Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ”(1) The above quote sums up what I assume people mean when applying the title “Natural” to a “right. ” Pro says “To sum it up, nature, independent of human activities, one can assume that guns would in fact be granted by natural law since both laws exist to grant but also take away firearms. ” He concludes this by saying “Since nature is free from human activity, the laws made by humans would NOT apply to natural law since nature is free from human activity. ” The title of this section is inclusive of human action. Is owning a gun a natural right? Owning is an example of human activity is it not? The action of a human owning a gun. Therefore, based on the definition and application by pro, the human action of owning a gun would be outside of nature, and therefore not a natural right. ii. Granted by law made by humans Certainly I accept the obvious empirical evidence that gun ownership is granted by U. S. law, as it is not against the law to own many types of guns, however not all types. Pro says “One can now assume, it is indeed a right granted by a law made by people as well. At the end it even states "shall not be infringed" meaning it will always be a right. ” This is part of why I wanted to have this debate. The second amendment does not say “guns,” it says “arms. ” Now before I get accosted, Yes I agree that guns can be described as arms. However, so could a sword, or club. Did it include Cannons, and explosives? What about grenades? Do we have a right to bombs and drones? What constitutes arms in the phrase “bearing arms? ” Conclusion: Accepting Pro’s definitions of natural, natural law, and natural right excludes ownership of a gun. This is the case because Pro said that natural is outside of human activity. Ownership is human activity. Thus Gun ownership is not a “natural” right. The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms. ) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms. ” The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically. (1) . http://www.crfcelebrateamerica.org...
Gun rights

I recognize the rules of this debate and understand what it's about. I've been waiting for a debate a little bit more like this.==Argument==i. Is owning a gun a natural right?Natural being defined as "Rights that people supposedly have under natural law."Natural law being "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature"[http://dictionary.reference.com...][http://dictionary.reference.com...]To be granted something by nature, being defined as "the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities."To sum it up, nature, independent of human activities, one can assume that guns would in fact be granted by natural law since both laws exist to grant but also take away firearms. Since nature is free from human activity, the laws made by humans would NOT apply to natural law since nature is free from human activity.ii. Granted by law made by humansThe U.S.A Constitution is the "supreme law of the U.S.A"[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Taking the quote as said above by Con..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."One can now assume, it is indeed a right granted by a law made by people as well. At the end it even states "shall not be infringed" meaning it will always be a right.==Conclusion for round 1==This is not the full arguments I'll be making,as I have MUCH more to say. This, is a "taste" of my arguments. I will elaborate more on i and ii in round 2 and 3.
rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

"so when is it true for a man born blind, to say, there is a rainbow in the sky." If it is raining and it is daytime, then it is factually correct for him to say it, weather he can see it or not. Like I said, refracted light exist regardless if we do or not. We all are blind to Ultra Violet rays, but we definitely know they exist. Therefore, and to the contrary, it is accurate and true for a blind man to say, "rainbows exist."
rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

"heat of fire might be a proof of necessary light, heat of a fire dosnt prove there is a rain bow in the sky" I never claimed "heat of fire" proves there is a rainbow in the sky. Refracted light proves that there is a rainbow in the sky (which is in our spectrum of light, which I have proven earlier), weather you are colorblind or not. I'm not a scientist, but here is something that will show you: http://www.physicsclassroom.com... Refracted light is merely when the behavior of light is met by a new medium that changes the behavior of light. Refracted light isn't merely limited to rainbows. Fiber Optics also refract light, which pretty much powers most peoples' internet connections----connections that even colorblind people use. Ever get hit by a light on a mirror? Refracted light. Also, your argument doesn't prove rainbows don't exist to a person born blind. Therefore, I don't think you win this round.
rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

Regardless if a person is colorblind, the light spectrum still exists. In fact, the light spectrum has existed before our species even walked the earth. Even if a blind person subjectively cannot experience color, he/she can refer to scientific findings as evidence of the light spectrum. Also, these now exist for people born blind: http://enchroma.com... That's right, folks. Colorblind peeps can now experience color.
Should women have rights

My opponent has failed to understand the meaning of BoP (Burden of Proof). To my opponent: You did not state who had the BoP, so I put it on you. This means, quite literally, you have the burden of proving that women should have rights, when I must either prove women shouldn't have rights, or prove that you are false with my rebuttals, which I chose to do. Thank you for the debate. To the voters: Since my opponent's points do not stand, and she had the BoP, I therefore win the debate.
Should women have rights

Thank you for the debate topic. For the information of the voters and Pro, this is my first debate on Debate.org and I have no problem with women's rights, I simply want to have a fun debate. Thank you again to Pro for the topic. I accept this Debate, let's do this! To settle the objective of the debate as Pro has failed to use to her advantage I will do so myself. In this debate, Pro will have to use her present knowledge and acquired knowledge throughout the course of the debate to keep her points active that women as a whole should have rights. I, as Con, will need to rebuttal those points and bring her reasons for arguing that women should have rights down. At least half of her points must stand for the debate to be hers to win. The winner of these rules will get the vote for: Agreed with before the debate; Agreed with after the debate. The other points apply as they usually would. Rebuttals "The people. Saying that women dont have rights are mostly men!" -the majority of the feminist movement is female. This is just common sense. "I am a twelve year old GIRL that want to become an author, not a slave that makes food for men all day long!" -If you are on the earth you cannot legally become a slave, so this is invalid. "I see so many people saying women are dumb, women arent human, women cant do anything but cook for men. Well, you are wrong. There are women in NASA that work really hard, they get thi gs done!" -In this statement, woman is a term used to cover many people, unless you find some research article that says that the majority of women have a higher IQ than their male counterpart, this doesn't apply. "people dont care about their oppinion at all!" - I am a person, by definition, and there are many women whose opinions I care about. So this is invalid. Many of these points don't even contribute to the fact that women as a whole deserve rights. I expect a more polished argument in the future. I look forward to your response. Sources Slavery in the world 1) http://borgenproject.org...
Should women have rights

I see so many people saying women are dumb, women arent human, women cant do anything but cook for men. Well, you are wrong. There are women in NASA that work really hard, they get thi gs done! There are women that are scientists that work hard, they make the world a better place! The people. Saying women dont have rights are mostly men! What whould your mother say about that! She put you in the world! In fact men cant reproduce, so without women the human race would die out! People say we have equality now. Well, we dont! Women may be allowed to vote and work, but they get payed less, people dont care about their oppinion at all! I am a Twelve year old GIRL that want to become an author, not a slave that makes food for men all day long! Women are human, they have a brain, a heart, THEY. ARE. HUMAN. People have said there shouldnt be a debate about this, well there should, because i dont want my rights taken away from me when i become an adult! People tell me that i am just a stupid kid, well this kid can understand when things are not fare! You teach us as kids to not fight, to keep things fare, that equality is important! When in reality adults start wars. Adults dont keep things fare! ADULTS LIE TO KIDS ABOUT HOW THE WORLD IS!!! SO I THINK I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!
Parli: This House values life over liberty.

1. Life is liberty. Just the point of being alive is in itself a liberty that we have once we are conscious. In the words of one Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death! " We have the liberty to choose whether or not to be truly living. 2. Without liberty, we are not really living. Existing in a state of peace in which nothing interesting ever happens and one obeys every expectation of society is not living. . http://media.photobucket.com... Exercising liberty is of great importance to keeping our society moving forward. 3. Exercising liberty is a form of patriotism. Our country was founded on the ideal that liberty, freedom from control, in our case freedom from control of a monarchal government, is of utmost importance to a person's being. As we have established from the very beginning, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are guaranteed to us. Choosing to exercise those liberties, therefore, is upholding truly American ideals and supports our country patriotically.
Bio-Environmental determinism is compatible with free will.

Common sense establishes that "Will" (as in will jump or will ride) yields "Can." I simply argue that the inverse of the statement is true; that all happens that can happen and that what does not happen can not happen. Choice is the word that you use for many possible outcomes, and that which I use for a determined decision. Rationality is directly supplementary to biological determinism; it is, metaphorically, that water in a cup will stay in the cup. Rationality is a major impact on the definite outcome of a choice. As for moral responsibility I think that it should be done in another debate. And so I argue: 1. We have free will if and only if we are the most direct sources of our choices, with the reasonable exclusion of immediate external factors (such as a glass of water being too far to grab) 3. What influences us to make one choice is less direct than our making of the choice 4. We are the most direct link to our decision, with the exclusion of the decision itself, therefore. 5. We have free will. The only fundamental differences between my opponent's view and my view are: In my opinion, in any given decision, the combination of countless of factors, all of which can be traced back infinitely (not humanly, of course) as far as existence goes, ultimately leaves only one decision that will be made. Whereas in my opponent's opinion, there are multiple ultimately possible choices. And the definition of "free will" as the "Originator" of our choices versus the "most direct cause" of our choices. My opponent's definition of free will, if taken as absolute, suggests the lack of external forces that limit one's choices. Such exclusions include factors that undeniably limit the outcome of an action such as, for example, a disability or a death threat. There exist indirect factors of a decision's outcome, including those those relating to the decision itself. Robert Kane takes the point of view that the outcome of a "self forming action" is based on chance, and I take a similar point of view varying on the belief that once all is factored, one possible outcome has a definite chance of occurrence. Again, however, both beliefs include the making of a choice.