BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gun rights

Hmm.. Interesting counter-point indeed. If it's alright with you, I'd like to get back on track here and talk about gun rights for American citizens, such as yourself (preferably leaving my mother out of the debate). What do you think should happen with current laws in order to both restrict who has the ability to obtain and own a gun, and diminish the amount of gun-related violence here in the great country we live in. What is your position on this topic specifically? How open-minded are you to the fact that your right to bear arms may not be the best for the country as a whole. Meaning.. if you knew that giving up that right could potentially save a lot of lives would you be okay with giving up that right?
gun rights

First of all, I didn't come onto this site to talk to a dirty hippie like you. I bet you are sitting in some yoga class eating some tofu-kale hybrid garbage, telling everyone else in the class how you went to Indonesia to "find yourself". You probably spent all of your parents money at an extremely expensive university in order to acquire your super practical philosophy degree (because you're a moron, I wanted to let you know that I was being sarcastic in my preceding statement). Not only is you're argument unoriginal, you also sound like a retarded third grader while explaining it. You're fat, you're stupid, and I had sex with your mom last night. I would also like to say that punching you in the face would be worth a "shot" you insufferable loser. AMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gun rights

Due to the fact that guns are such a large concern for our society, as far as the misuse of them goes, a lot of people are concerned that they are too readily available for "bad people" and need to be limited or even eliminated completely. When I say a lot of people, I am one of those people. I believe that guns serve no purpose in todays society unless you're going hunting for sport, using a gun in defense from someone else that has a gun (which if guns were illegal then this would be few and far between), or for law enforcing (this can be another debate in of itself due to misuse and unjust use of guns) or government use. Guns, however, are necessary for war and protection of our citizens. The purpose and use of guns has changed drastically over the years and it seems every other day (every day actually and many times a day) there is a new gun-related crime or terrorism involving guns. Eliminating the problem all together (guns) seems to be the most effective way to stop gun violence and acts of terrorism, of course it wouldn't stop problems completely but it's a start and worth a "shot".
gun rights

You bring up an excellent point, and I actually agree with your reasoning. It just occurred to me that you can't magically make all of the current guns go away. Implementing a law with that idea in mind would not only fail to cease every gun in America but it would fail to decrease crime because criminals don't follow laws and always find a way around them. It was a pleasure having this conversation/debate with you (minus the first couple of responses. .. ) and I hope you continue to stand up for the things you think are right.
gun rights

If violent people have guns, then non-violent people need them more. If I may give a few examples, I would like to further my point. The Aurora movie theater shooting and the Virginia Tech Massacre. You might be thinking that these are examples to strengthen your argument. Quite the contrary actually, you see, regardless of whether guns are illegal or not, people who operate outside the parameters of normal society( i.e. hitmen, drug dealers, gang members, robbers) are going to be able to obtain those weapons. Such is the case in both of the aforementioned shootings. If both of the perpetrators of those shootings really wanted to get firearms, they could. There are ways around the law. That being said, people who do abide by the rules of our society need to be able to protect themselves. If there had been at least one person who was trained in the proper safety and usage of firearms, and carried a firearm themselves, there would have been a significant reduction in casualties. Conversely, in the actual instance of the Aurora movie theater shooting, no one had a firearm, and they had to wait for police to arrive while the shooter gunned down more and more people. There will always be guns available to those who really want them, and for those of us who want to protect ourselves and others around us need to be prepared.
gun rights

Not a problem, I appreciate you staying with me on this important topic. I believe we are somewhat on the same page as far as the gun restriction laws in place. We need to be more thorough in who can obtain weapons and for what reasons they intend to use them. Unfortunately, even with such restrictions in place, this wouldn't stop theft of weapons in the hands of a responsible owner, not to mention all of the accidental gun-related deaths that occur each year in America, even with the proper training, the gun could still cause unintentional harm to the user or people surrounding the user. To answer your questioning regarding whether it would eliminate violence completely, of course not. People have always been violent and guns are simply, as you put it, an instrument to that violence. If that instrument didn't exist, people would find other ways to kill and cause violence, no doubt. Guns specifically, however, simply make it easier. Someone that has killed with a gun could probably tell you that it wasn't a hard thing to do, it's a split second decision, a pull of a trigger, and if violent people were not given the instrument that makes killing so easy they might think twice about their decisions/actions.
gun rights

Listen man, I'm sorry that I have been harassing you throughout the duratioin of this discussion. I like to test people to make sure that they are reasonable to discuss the exceedingly important subject matter at hand. I have been trolled many times and I like to make sure that I am talking to a real person. Now, if you can forgive me and we can get down to business, I actually do disagree with your point of view and I would like the opportunity to convince you otherwise. As far as gun restriction goes, I do agree that the system in place is positively abhorrent. Firearms are way too accessible in this country, and the background checks should be much more extensive in order to purchase a weapon. Every American citizen should also be mandated to attend a gun safety/use program prior to being able to purchase a firearm. I also disagree that automatic weapons should be available for public use, but I still maintain my stance that every American has the right to bear arms. Do you think that eliminating firearms will cause a decrease in the violence that constantly plagues this country? I think the problem is deeper than that. Most gun violence occurs in areas ridden with poverty and crime, where people are hungry and need to resort to illegal ways of making money to put food on the table? Shouldn't we try to eliminate the cause of violence rather than eliminating an instrument of violence?
The circle is more superior then the square.

===> D E F I N I T I O N S <=== For clarity I pose the following definitions: Side - part of a boundry ===> A R G U M E N T <=== My opponent has made 3 criterion for being "superior" in relation to a square: Mobility, Sides, and Structure. I will address each contention peace-meal. --> Mobility <-- My opponent has let us know that we are debating a 2-D object. With that said 2-D objects cannot move, thus this point is moot. However on the subject of mobility, squares are used to make cube. Cubes are used for boxes. I do not see any circles being used to construct boxes. We as the human race use boxes to transport our goods across the country. Circular boxes would be inconvenient, waste storage space, roll around and damage goods, and make it difficult to carry. Wheras square boxes optimize storage space and allow thousands of people who ship their goods when moving to save space and thus money. Therefore it can be argued that the square shape in terms of mobility is more mobile and more economically efficient then a circle. --> Sides <-- My opponent has stated that a circle has an infinite amount of sides, however he would be completely false. As is clear from the definition a circle as in a circular disk. A disk has only two sides, a top side and a bottom side. Or looked at differently a circle has only 2 sides, an inside and an outside. Meaning that it has 2 sides. This is equal in both aspects to that of a square. -->Structure<-- 2-D figures cannot bounce, thus this point is moot. Furthermore even if we were talking about 3-D figures the shape does not determine whether it will bounce but rather the material it made out of. A circle made of lead which lands a lead surface will not bounce. However a rubber square that lands on a lead surface will. ===> C O N C L U S I O N <=== I have refuted all three of my opponent's contentions with ease and have proven that the circle is no more superior than a square. Furthermore I have even taken a step towards proving a square to be more superior than a circle in terms of mobility(by my opponent's criterion).
The circle is more superior then the square.

I affirm that circle is more superior than the square Specifically the circle and the square. Seeing as a sphere is a 3-D object, this debate will be on the 2-D object, the circle. Considering a square is also a rectangle, you may use a rectangle in your response. I will now list the reasons why a circle is far more superior compared to a rectangle. Mobility - On a line, the circle is able to move almost effortlessly anywhere on a line. A square can only sit, and wait patiently for a circle to roll onto its side so it can slide for a brief moment. A circle can go down a slope with more speed or gracefulness then a square. A square will simply slide or tumble down a slope. Sides - A circle has infinite amount of sides, whereas a square only has 4. Infinity > 4. Structure - A circle can bounce on a line if dropped, unlike a square, which would only fall and land.
The circle is more superior then the square.

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for the affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that circle is more superior than the square. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: circle, square, and superior, and set up a strict standard for the what is square/circle/superior and what isn't. Make it clear where to draw the line between each one. These lines should be clearly distinguishable. By which standards should this debate be judged? Should judges weighed based on who gains the most laughter? Proves his point the most? Is more creative in his arguments? If so how do they rank with the other categories in terms of importance? Are they 3-d or 2-d? Do rectangles count as squares in this debate? In what context are they superior? In terms of size, uses in architecture, in life, as a shape of currency? Specify in which terms they are superior. Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why the Circle is superior to the square in whatever terms you specify. What would the world be like without circles? The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why the Circle is more superior (in whatever context you are debating). As the person who created the resolution, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why the circle is superior to the square. You should also give your opinion on other shapes, is the circle superior to them as well? If so why? Thanks and good luck on the debate!
Atheism vs. Christianity

Since it is my responsibility to disprove Christianity I will begin with one of the most well known biblical texts, the story of Noah's ark. First, a ship the the size of the ark (450 ft long 75 ft wide and 45 feet deep ) would in know way be able to accommodate two of every species in the world. Which brings me to the second reason that Noah's ark is a work of fiction. Some common replies to this argument is that it only would have had to carry the land treading air-breathing animals. The ark still wouldn't meet the needed size requirements and if the flood covered the entire Earth than salt and fresh water would have mixed killing all aquatic animals in the process. Lastly how would Noah have met the food requirements of the animals. There would be no room left aboard the ship for the food. After the 40 days and nights when Noah made landfall and released the animals what would the carnivores eat before the other animals repopulated the Earth? The next biblical account I will attempt to disprove is the biblical account of the Earth's creation. The Earth was created in 6 days and God rested on the 7th day. If God truly is omnipotent then why would he need to rest? There are also several contradictions in the creation story: Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam. Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam. Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam. Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam. Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time. Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later. The bible states that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Scientist have disproved this using multiple dating methods. Many creationists will argue that carbon dating isn't precise. Which is true, and geologists know this, which is why they use multiple other dating methods instead. Such as: -Radiocarbon dating -Dendrochronology -Thermoluminescent dating -Optically stimulated luminescence -Potassium-argon dating -And many others that I haven't listed here. Another common argument Christians like to quote is that the bible is the only true guide to morality, and that there is no such thing as "good without God". In the bible God did all the things stated below, tell me do they sound like the acts of a moral god? -God threatened hostility, punishing people for their sins "seven times over," making them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. (Leviticus 26:27-29) -God was displeased with Miriam, so he struck her with leprosy and banished her from the camp for seven days. (Numbers 12:9-14) -God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. " The virgins were presumably raped. (NOTE: How could the soldiers know which women were virgins? ) (Numbers 31:17-18) -There are hundreds of more examples at . http://www.thethinkingatheist.com... I did not cite that much information because a lot of it came from past research, and from memory.
Atheism vs. Christianity

In round 4 you speak that the fossils in the Grand Canyon were from millions of years ago because of plate tectonics. The evolutionists didn't have people millions of years ago to write down what happened. Creationists, however, have had people from thousands of years write down what had happened. There were many people who wrote the bible based on what God said. Also, there are multiple authors of the bible whod haven't even heard of or seen each other, and have written the same thing in the bible. Then you say that Jericho's walls didn't fall because of supernatural acts, what if God used tectonic plates to crumble the walls, or if people mistaken the huge rubble falling to ground as an earthquake? The thing about atheists is that y'all don't just believe, y'all have to question everything. Science isn't meant to prove stuff right, but to prove stuff wrong. So good luck proving God wrong!
Atheism vs. Christianity

It is true that some accounts in the bible may be partially correct, but that does not mean that it is completely correct. Archaeologists have discovered evidence that the walls at Jericho fell from an earthquake. Not a supernatural force, but a natural event. The people that observed what happened at Jericho didn"t know about plate tectonics, so they acquitted what happened to God. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years. Zeus is a prime example, humans didn"t understand what caused lightning, so they assumed a God must have been behind it. We now know that lightning is a meteorological event. The same happened at Jericho, except instead of lightning and Zeus, it was an earthquake and YaHweh. Archaeology is an unsure science, as is all science. When a new discovery is made the old one is replaced. That"s what makes science work. Once Religion has a set opinion about a matter it never changes. It doesn"t matter what evidence is presented religions do not change their opinions. Science however, changes its ideas based on evidence. Scientists once thought the Earth was the center of the universe, but when new evidence was presented it changed its position based on the evidence. This occurs all the time. "Is it acceptable to use a fallible procedure to judge what claims to be the foolproof Word of God?" The bible can claim that it is the word of God but that doesn"t mean that it is. I can claim that I can fly, but that doesn"t mean that I can. I would be asked to prove it, and of course I, wouldn"t be able to, and no one would believe me. Why is it any different with the bible. "Using the less certain to judge the more certain appears logically blemished." I could be highly confident that I could fly, but that that doesn"t mean that I could. A better argument would be "Using the less proven to judge the more proven appears logically blemished". However, that argument is not in your favor. None of the passages you listed (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10, or Job 26:7) clearly state anything about the shape of the Earth or the expansion of the Universe. It is possible to warp them into a blurry resemblance of modern day science, but nothing more. There is a rather large amount of proof disproving the actual date that the prophecies of Daniel were written. Proper science is unbiased, that is probably the greatest aspect of science. Whenever a scientist conducts an experiment and it doesn't work out to match his hypothesis he learns from it. He doesn't change his results to make him look smart or correct he simply learns from it. Again, science changes what it considers fact when presented with new evidence. "Using the less-certain to gauge the more-certain simply doesn't make sense." No it does not, so why then are you trying to judge something based on evidence and facts with something based on superstition and fear? And I leave you with this, "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ...Stephen F Roberts
Atheism vs. Christianity

Evolution has given many creatures the ability to imagine scenarios, humans just take this a step further and write it down to entertain others. So yes, humans do have the ability to "just think up" fictional accounts. It has been proven many times over. If humans couldn't than their would only be one section in every library, non-fiction. It is exactly like having several fiction writers come together to write a book, and then having a character in the book saying that the book is correct. The bible is no different. It is true that radiometric dating techniques are not always accurate which is why scientists use multiple methods to cross reference, instead of just one such as: argon-argon fission track dating helium iodine-xenon lanthanum-barium lead-lead lutetium-hafnium neon-neon optically stimulated luminescence potassium-argon radiocarbon rhenium-osmium rubidium-strontium samarium-neodymium uranium-lead uranium-thorium You again base your argument on the bible being correct. Can you please provide some examples to prove that the bible is historically accurate? The definition of morality as given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... mo"ral"i"ty noun \mə-G2;ra-lə-tē, moM5;-: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something If God truly is omnipotent and governs morality through the word of the bible then how were biologists able to change people"s perception of right and wrong by stimulating the brain with magnets? http://www.dailymail.co.uk... How would brain damage inhibit the power of the bible? http://www.abc.net.au... If the only way to be moral is through the bible then why is there a smaller percentage of atheists (0.02%) in prison than there are christians (74%)? http://ffrf.org... http://forums.randi.org... There are fossils in the Grand Canyon because millions of years ago it was under the ocean, but not from a "Great Flood" but because of plate tectonics. http://www.bobspixels.com... There are fossils in the Himalaya mountains because mountains are formed when tectonic plates collide and push upwards. The area at and around the Himalaya mountains were once underwater, and when the mountains were formed fossils were carried up along with the rock. The human body is highly complex but so are other organisms. Complexity does not have to immediately point to creation, evolution can be accredited for the complexity. Our brain does process a lot of information but that is no reason to say that there must be a creator.