BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Duck would make a better president than Mickey Mouse

As a preface to this debate, there are only 2 rounds because I only need to enter 1 more debate to be able to vote... and I see some good debate here! Round 1 will be arguments, round 2 clash and conclusion. Thanks to whoever takes it! I am arguing that Mickey Mouse would make a better president than Donald Duck for the following 3 reasons: 1) Mickey Mouse is a much better public speaker, simply because he does not have that infuriating duck lisp. Our country relies on presidents that can get a simple thought across without making anyone listening to him want to rip out their eardrums in despair, so obviously Mickey Mouse's soothing high-pitched voice is a better choice than Donald's rasp. 2) Mickey Mouse is much more charismatic. This is a necessity in any president, because diplomacy is one of the president's biggest jobs. A charismatic president has a much greater chance of getting his agenda pushed through Congress than a president who is generally unlikeable. 3) Donald Duck is very angry and violent. We do not need a president who could go to war with Asia because of a temper tantrum. Finally, Duck has an annoying voice. I know I already said that, but geez, have you heard him talk?
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

This is the first debate I've had on this forum - so please pardon the delay in finding this portion of the site - and any other mistakes my unfamiliarity with the rules causes me to make. The subject is gun control in the US - and I'm arguing against gun control. It's kind of ironic this topic should be chosen by Uniferous, as both famousdebater and I are British - and when I thought we were going to have this debate in the forums, I was going to ask how far it's possible to get from civilization in the UK? How many wild animals there are wandering about? My intent in asking this question was not necessarily to suggest that all guns in America are owned for this reason. I'm quite sure famousdebater wouldn't let me get away with that. But the US is a big country, and there are dangerous wild animals wandering about loose, and people do own guns for this reason. The strategic aim of this line of questioning was to force famousdebater to admit from the outset, that there are some valid reasons to own guns in the US. Given this change of form, my first question now is, will famousdebater acknowledge this fact - and if so, who's guns would he want to ban? How would he decide who legitimately held firearms, and who had no valid reason to own a gun? My second question is about the gun trade in America. Given that there are over 50,000 licensed dealers, selling 5.5 million guns per year to 47% of US households - and given that overall, the firearms industry is worth over $30bn per year to the US economy - what overriding imperative requires all this business be forgone? My third question and final question is perhaps the most simple - yet the most difficult to answer. How do you suppose the estimated 310 million guns already in private ownership in America can be accounted for and confiscated - if that is indeed, what you are suggesting is done? If not, what should be done - and how would this account for the 310 million guns already out there?
Blind Patriotism Is Foolish

You make some bery good points. But I was discuasing the constant screaming from every country that can 'we're #1' an execelent case being the United States. I do not doubt that other countries have excelled in everything in the past, but not really anymore. For instance China has the most industry, but also population limits. The United States has the largest army, but also some of the lowest education rankings. The list goes on here. When I discussed blind patriotism, I meant full, almost obssessive love for your country, not loyalty, which is really just patriotism. I hope that cleared this up.
Blind Patriotism Is Foolish

"I believe that blind patriotism, like believing your country is the greatest when no evidence exists is a stupid, pointless waste of energy" This depends on your definition of 'patriotism'. Oxford dictionary defines 'patriotism' as such: Patriotism - Noun "The quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one"s country:" With this in mind, I believe that unwavering support and love for one's country is not foolish or a "waste of energy", but is in fact necessary for a functioning nation to exist. A nation, on a basic level, is a group of people, usually defined within a geographic parameter, who are organised to form a single State, with a Government serving all basic societal needs - defence, policing, justice, etc. Thus, patriotism is not "believing that your country is the best when no evidence exists" - that would be jingoism. Patriotism is love and support for the nation where you grew up in or now feel emotionally attached to by residence or ancestry. "This is because I think that no country can be "the best," due to the fact that I do not believe countries are really anything other than arbitrary. " You make two separate claims in this sentence, both of which I believe are incorrect. First you say that no country can be "the best". There have been many countries or empires throughout history that were by any objective standard "the best". They were the best because they out-did all other countries in everything - quality of life, business, wealth, military, etc. And of course when it comes down to it the final standard of any country's greatness will always be whether it wins battles or not. Think the Roman Empire at its height. Few would argue that the German tribes to the North of Roman Empire were on-par with Rome. If you measure a country's "greatness" by whether or not it is "arbitrary" then you have a very narrow definition; and a faulty one at that. "due to the fact that I do not believe countries are really anything other than arbitrary. " You are very wrong in this argument. Most nations evolved through a very long period of history and development; many having existed for thousands of years in some form or another. Great Britain has existed as a Kingdom for over one thousand years now, and has it's roots in the Roman Empire, giving it another few hundred years. In this way, the people of Great Britain are united by one linguistic, racial, and religious bond. It is the same throughout the Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, etc) Of course, many nations are indeed arbitrary. Most in Africa had their borders drawn up hastily by Colonial powers, ignoring tribal and ethnic differences. On Israel, you may be right in some ways, but the Nation of Israel has existed as a Jewish homeland for over 4,000 years and in that way it can be argued that it's existence is far from "arbitrary" - In fact, the Arabs today have less a claim to Israel than the Jews do because they made their way there by Islamic conquest.
Blind Patriotism Is Foolish

I beleive that blind patriotism, like beleiving your country is the greatest when no evidence exists is a stupid, pointless waste of energy. This is because I think that no country can be "the best," due to the fact that I do not beleive countries are really anything other than arbitrary. A great example is Israel, because they really have no officiial borders, so everyone disagrees on where the border ends. "Maybe we should stop cutting maps up into sections and focus on the real problems," -paraphrased fron Jeremy Hardy.
Atheists are evil

Opening ArgumentsMeSince my opponent claims that utterly all atheists are evil, all I must do is merely point to an atheists who isn't. And so, in the interest of keeping my points brief to accommodate more rebuttals, I will sum this up quickly.I, myself am an atheist, and I am not evil. I lead a fairly average life. I have never been accused or convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or felony, and any crime I've actually committed has never exceeded misdemeanor classification. I've never killed a person, I've never raped a person, I've never injured a person (on purpose). I often give to charity. By most standard, secular opinions, I am a perfectly average person, morally speaking. But enough about me, let's get to real evidence.Atheists and PhilanthropySuch as the top three philanthropists of America (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and George Soros) are atheists, and before them, one of the leading philanthropists of the country was Andrew Carnegie, who was known to be an atheist.(1)Atheists and CrimeAtheists made up 0.07% of the American prison population in 2013(2), but 7% of the actual American population in 2014.(3)Atheists and ViolenceA page can be found in the sources ranking each nation in the world by death rates by violence. Notice that most of the nations with least violence rates are also the nations with the highest atheism rates.Source(s)(1): http://ieet.org...;(2): http://www.alternet.org...(3): http://www.pewresearch.org...Atheists and violence: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com...
Atheists are evil

My opponent will argue that all atheists are evil and I will negate his claim. The burden of proof is on my opponent because he is making the positive claim. I wish my opponent good luck in the ensuing rounds. StructureRound 1: Acceptance/Opening StatementsRound 2: Opening Arguments/No RebuttalsRound 3: Further Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4: Further Rebuttals/Closing StatementsOpening StatementsMy opponent claims that all atheists are evil. This will be remarkably easy to refute and I hope my audience sees why.
exams

My opponents has forfeited so voters give me conduct over her since I haven't. I will finish this debate by just going over voters 1. She hasn't attacked any of my points 2. at least 4 to 7 test per week is too stressful some states yeah have 70 maybe 80 minute classes but in Texas which has one of the most populations in the U.S. and is huge we have 45 minutes, some schools maybe have as low as 30 minute yes it varies per state. 3. Since a resolution this will be applied nationally so will effect people in states like mine Texas that only have 45 minutes per class 4. daily grades and sometimes even homework help bring up grades. If homework is to much for some solution would be to nationaly or state levely make less homework per class or something but yeah just test will hurt more then help. So yeah to much stress for multiple test each week, and only can make up failure to 70 so will hurt grades heavily.
exams

I would like to address what my opponent has said then if enough characters left in this limited character I will back up my points 1. But you still relize that since this is a resolution is effected nationally this would hurt the kids that live in states like me in Texas a huge state with a huge population where we only have 45 minutes per class? Since we have 7 classes so at least 5 test per week using your 2. Do you relize how stressful a test every week would be?? That is way to much studying also again daily grades are needed to bring up grades overall. You relize you can only make up most test to a 70 right?? Maybe you are satisfied with a system that will only let you make up to a 70 but some would like to have A's and B's Conclusion: Daily grades are needed so we can't just have test and not all students would benefit from a test every week very stressful and if you are in a state like me with 7 45 minute classes then you have 7 test every week based off your method.
exams

I would appreciate it if we could keep this topic away from homework, I have already had that debate; http://www.debate.org... I would just like to respond to your comment about a class period in high school being 45 minutes long. I'm going to have to disagree with that it depends on what state you live in, my class periods are 80minutes long and we have tests every Friday. This is a debate but also a personal question I have so if you don't mind id like to base this argument off my high school standards. Also we are permitted one retake so long as we right a paper as to why we deserve one and correct the mistakes we have made. My response; I believe homework should be assigned just not put into the grading system considering that not all students have a correct setting at home to complete homework, weekly tests are a great alternative because anyone can pass one so long as they have paid attention in class and done the optional homework if they needed practice.
exams

My opponent has limited characters to 1,000 so can't type much :( clarification: their isn't a resolution just a title so since their is no resolution I will just attack what my opponent says is her main central argument Observation 1: If I prove that basing grades off just test isn't beneficial to all students I win Observation 2: since the title is exams and my opponent says grades should be based off test that means she is not only suggesting no homework but no daily grades Cont 1: Not all students would benefit from test/exam based In high school you have 45 minutes per class which is why homework is needed especially in math, now a few can learn something right away but not all can and this has been scientifically proven as well Cont 2: daily grades/homework gives students chance to make up failed test grade Cont 3: only 1 or 2 test per class for six weeks IF a person fails one test and barley passes the other they are done will add rest info for arguments on next round
Abstinence-Only Education is Ineffective

I think the bigger problem here isn't the rise in teenage sex, but rather, the lack of health insurance covering "wellness exams" and other preventative measures that come long before the age of sex. What I mean by that is if insurance was what it was designed to be (and I'm not for health insurance like they have in Canada- it has major flaws, to say the least, or why would they be coming here for surgeries- I'm not talking about the DRUG program, I'm talking about the doctor visits/hospitalization/surgery part), then teens would have access to resources should they choose or find themselves in a sexual position (no pun intended) rather than relying on public schools to do it. You may be right, abstinence-only ed. isn't effective (or not nearly the way it should be), but maybe your argument would be strengthened by other alternatives than teaching everyone (even those who choose to abstain till their wedding day- which I'm not naive enough to think is the majority of teens, especially those whose parents either aren't around to nurture them OR they had sex at that age too) how to have sex. It's kind of like teaching everyone that evolution is the only way, or that the Bible has no merit as a moralistic book or that President Bush is the devil or something like that. In other words, it shouldn't be a black and white issue where the two sides are either abstinence-only (which may not work) OR safe sex education - there may be somewhere in the "middle" to embrace.
Abstinence-Only Education is Ineffective

I see your point but teaching birth control method isn't saying "sex is fine, don't worry about the consequences". To use your junk food example, we tell people that junk food is bad for them, and educate them on the risks. But still, people eat it; I don't know anyone except those with diabetes or other severe health problems who completely abstain from eating bad snacks. So in light of that, there are pushed to make healthier snacks, think of all the "low fat" stickers you see on labels. As for sex, even if we give people all the information on potential risks, and we should, not everyone is going to listen. It would ideal if humans could act more logically; if it's bad for you, don't do it. But the situational evidence says that they don't. To use history again, unwanted pregnancies and STDs were a problem a hundred years ago when unmarried sex was a much bigger taboo, and birth control hardly even existed. If teenagers were having sex under those circumstances, why would they stop now that our culture accepts it so much more? I'm not telling people to have sex because everyone is doing it, I'm saying "It's risky and you probably shouldn't, but if you're going to here's how to protect yourself." It may be stupid or immoral (and that's another debate), but the bottom line is that I wouldn't want my child to get and STD or get pregnant early under any circumstances. If they came home with syphilis I wouldn't say "Well, you knew the risks so suck it up". Sex ed is supposed to preventative; we shouldn't want those things happening to anyone.
Abstinence-Only Education is Ineffective

First, let me respond to something you said. We both agree that abstinence is the only way to protect yourself from pregnancy or STDs (because, let's face it, birth control CAN be ineffective...there's no fool-proof or error-free method, no matter what some people may claim). However, to argue that "people will do it anyway" is similar to the argument of let's teach people junk food is fine and guns (no matter how responsible or irresponsible the owner may be)- everyone should own one because people will own it anyway. In other words, enabling something that's illegal or unsafe or immoral just because everyone does it makes as much sense as telling a person with diabetes "everyone else is eating this pie, come on, you're gonna die anyway, so why not enjoy yourself". I agree the method may be ineffective, but the principle isn't.
Abstinence-Only Education is Ineffective

That is my sole argument, it just isn't an elaborated argument. For that, I answer your two points: A) It is ineffective in that it doesn't do what it was designed to do; protect teenagers from STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It is true that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to protect against these things, but teaching only abstinence is not going to stop teens from having sex, and if they don't know about birth control methods they will be at a much higher risk for pregnancies and STDs B) I would argue that they're very ineffective. Before birth control existed, back when something like sex before marriage was a huge taboo and there were no treatments for STDs, teenagers (and adults too) still had sex, so I don't see why they would be any more deterred now that sex is so much more socially acceptable. So it will not stop teens from having sex. And again, because those teens don't know about birth control methods, they will be at a higher risk for for diseases and unwanted pregnancies than those who are given that information. In that I believe it can do more harm than good. I would rather my child have sex often and ultimately be safe than have sex once and get a disease. In response to it being a generalization, the fault is my phrasing. Of course it isn't completely ineffective- I'm sure a few teens took it to heart- but the majority of the time it is.
Abstinence-Only Education is Ineffective

"Abstinence-Only education is ineffective, and could quite possibly do more harm than good." That's your only argument? While I can agree with you that certain methods of abstinence-only education are ineffective, it depends on what you a) consider ineffective and b) how ineffective they are. If that is your sole argument, I see no reason to debate this. If, however, you can provide an actual argument (as to why OR how or both they're ineffective), then I can debate you. But to debate such an overgeneralization is a waste of anyone's time, including yours.
Modern Video games have little to no sexism Change My mind

Thank you for your reply and also Hope you're a fellow brit because that would be awesome. I do agree with some of your points majority on Prostitution. If it came across that GTA's interpretation of prostitution is what I think it's really like then I am sorry. IT's not what I mean at all. I know that women who have to make ends meet have to do some desperate things that could possibly have them ending up worse than they currently are. The only point I will mention is that Some women do sex work on there own. (Source here)https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=G2mnyro54xo When it comes to female Options in video games though there are plenty. As for your Mario comment, There is a game where you play as princess peach and you save Mario and Luigi from Bowser. It's called Super Princess Peach. Now A lot on the opposition say is that her power is her emotions saying that women are highly emotional. The thing is if it was Mario the staff that princess peach uses would work on him the same way. Also, I Haven't played many sports games since im more into the RPG crowd but FIFA 16 does have the option to play with female players. I don't know how limited or unlimited the spectrum of gameplay it has but it is an option. I know this may be irrelevant to the argument but you do have to acknowledge that there are role models in gaming that are female even though they're fictional. For example, Want to be an explorer and archaeologist a very well paid and life-changing position laura croft is the spitting image of an archaeologist. Do you want to inspire to become a fighting champ in any type of fighting Chun-li (The women in blue with the exposed thighs if you never played street fighter) who was a woman of the cloth and spends every amount of money to her church? Also as a bonus Yoshinori Ono who is actually transgendered :). I know these people are fictional and as I said this might be off topic. So feel free to glance this over. As for multiplayer, It's branching off to the community rather than the actual topic I was talking about. But I will say that I do not tolerate that type of behaviour. The point I will make though is pretty much amounts to what the person can take when it comes to insults. If it's death threats and violence that's out of order. But when it comes to insults just plain insults there is a system in consols to block the person or mute them to not hear them or receive messages from them. Sorry if I sound rude when you read this. I hope to read your reply soon.