BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
you cant find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

you can't find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions. you have to compare developed nations against each other, and control for variables such as poverty v violence v guns. Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." R03; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://www.amjmed.com... http://www.vox.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://heinonline.org... http://tewksburylab.org... states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies. http://www.politifact.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://m.epirev.oxfordjournals.org... http://archinte.jamanetwork.com...
You choose topic, I choose position.

My position: ProIntroductionMy opponent didn't clearly state the resolution which should be this: Baloney Ponys should be legal in school. [Should: more benefits than harm]I choose Pro for this debate.My opponent broke some rules early on. First, he attempted to take a position even though I made it extremely clear that he isn't allowed to. Second, he began his argument, although it isn't much. Third, he didn't state the resolution, but I did say that it is something you should do, not necessarily have to do.DefinitionsBaloney Pony = PenisArguments No, I am not taking this debate very seriously. Almost all males are born with a penis (1). Radical penectomy surgery (the removal of the full penis) costs about $1800 (2). There were roughly 151 million postsecondary enrolling students in the year 2009 in all the world (3). The cost of this operation for this tiny fraction of students back in 2009 would be $135900000000 or 136 billion dollars. The benefits would need to outweigh this hefty amount of money. While solving one problem (teenage pregnancy), it creates a new one. Men will lose the ability to reproduce without the aid of a sperm bank. There would be drastic declines in human population. The drop would be devastating since our world economy is so sensitive to change. That is good enough for now. I doubt my opponent is actually going to try in this debate. References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.forerunnershealthcare.com... 3. http://chronicle.com...
You choose topic, I choose position.

Round 1 [Pro]: Set up DebateRound 1 [Con]: Acceptance and Choose Topic (Definitions if Needed) Round 2 [Pro]: Choose Position and Opening Argument (Definitions if Needed) Round 2 [Con]: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttal and Arguments Round 4: Rebuttal and Arguments Round 5: Closing StatementCharacter limit: 10,000Time to Argue: 72 HoursVoting Period: 10 Days You choose the topic. With the topic, you should include the resolution. It may be anything you wish as long as it is a debate. If it is something like a "rap battle" or "draw contest" please ask me first in the comments if it is okay. If you are unsure your topic will fall under this category, please ask me first in the comments. I get to choose my position. Note: Since I am pro without actually knowing what the topic is, you should disregard this unless I am actually pro. For the sake of the voters, please label yourself as pro or con at the very top of every submission.Purpose of this debate: I will likely learn about a new topic. My opponent will have to view that topic from both sides. This won't end up being an unfair debate such as arguing about a truism (i.e. Earth is not flat).
Certain power groups with major influences are attempting to make a world government.

< > Doesn't sound like one considering that all you got is a slight concern: < > The way I see this is, these people like to make money. If they find it possible to rule the world they would just like me and you would, and that's all. There's no way that they want to make a world government, I can get you series of quotes that suggest that all hippos are gay, but still, the quotes you gave me are so general and if Joseph Kennedy was alive today he'd say you're crazy. Of course these men have secret ways to make money or maybe they just like the privacy, or maybe they're all gay and they want time alone in private. It doesn't matter because it would be a crazy idea to suggest that these elites want to make a world government. How do you make a World government? Through war. If these elitists are like 2-50 men, like you Ron Paul conspiracy theorist freaks think they they are, how are they gonna takeover a nation that is so crazy about patriotism?
Certain power groups with major influences are attempting to make a world government.

You just gave vague replies to most of my points, you didn't make any new points. However, I don't feel like addressing everything you say, I think it's pretty useless because conspiracy theories will make up anything and go to extremes such as your topic sentence. So I guess I'll resign the debate, sorry. VOTE FOR PRO!!!!!!! But I wouldn't mind debating that I'm not a "Clinton sheeple" or that Ron Paul is the best candidate out there. In fact, Ron Paul supporters are the sheeples. Ron Paul just supports the values of community college kids on marijuana and libertarians.
Certain power groups with major influences are attempting to make a world government.

Sir, you are dodging all my points. This is a debate. Lets actually debate instead of you hiding from everything I say and calling me a conspirator. You have shown nothing to support your claims. And you call me bias. Wow... I was hoping we could have a real debate but obviously your afraid to take on such a topic that differers with your political views. I guess I challenged the wrong person. Another thing, how is my topic sentence bias? I mean most topic sentences are going to be bias towards the poster, but how does this differ then any other topic, say 'why Clinton is bad for this country?'? If you didn't want to debate then why did you except the challenge?
Resolved: On Balance, the benefits of Genetically Modified Foods Outweigh the Harms

Contention 1-Fertility Rats fed GMO foods usually suffered fertility. 99% of the time, rats died from birth, because they were fed GMOs. While we have not seen the long term effects of GMOs on humans, 99% of the time, female animals have suffered from birth. Also a new test conducted by British scientists showed that 16 out 30 hormones were inactive. Researchers were astonished by the fact that 16 vital hormones were dead. Researchers found that there were pesticides found inside those hormones causing infertility. Contention 2-Monopolies by GMO Corporations GMO corporations have started patenting their crops which would be helpful to them. But what is happening is that GMOS are cross-pollinating to other farm fields. Than farmers end up getting sued by GMO corporations for using their crops. This leaves the farmers either bankrupt or bought. This causes less competition and destroy innovation in the agriculture industry. Contention 3- Global Bans Britain, Ukraine, Sweden, Ireland, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Pakistan, and India all have on thing in common. They all have extensive bans on GMOs. But, why doesn't America have a ban. That is because GMO corporations have spent a total of 30 million dollars off of lobbying to keep labeling off of GMOS, because of fear of customer rejection. Well, 20 stats in America are pushing for labeling rights.
Resolved: On Balance, the benefits of Genetically Modified Foods Outweigh the Harms

If you wish to face me, please just say that you accept or whatever in your round 1 speech. The remainder of the debate will be as follows. Round 2: Constructives Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Counter-Rebuttals/Case Rebuilding Round 5: Key Voting Issues (NO NEW EVIDENCE HERE! !! ) The rules are fairly straight-forward and self explanatory. The only thing of note is that new evidence in Round 5 should be discounted. Moreover, I will not be requiring link citations at the ends of each speech. the author's name and/or affiliation will be sufficient.
Parents should not be allowed to tattoo their babies.

Definitions shouldn't be necessary for this. So I'll move straight to Pro's contentions and my own Neg case.===Pro Case===(1) Communication.- Pro argues that babies can't communicate, therefore we shouldn't be able to tattoo them. But how does this follow? Babies can clearly communicate (so Pro's point is false anyways) through verbal (crying) as well as non-verbal (gesturing) means but that's besides the point. My question is from whence the conclusion of the obligation not to tattoo babies follows. It doesn't. (2) Child Abuse.- Pro presents two problems here. 1)- She hasn't actually established why its child abuse. Her evidence therefore amounts to no more and no less than pure conjecture. 2)- She seems to take it as a presumption that a moral obligation exists not to abuse children. On a contractual view, parents would be within their rights to do most things provided that they don't physically/psychologically coerce the child into staying within their house.===Con Case===On preference utilitarianism, the morality or immorality of an action is determined by its contribution to the satisfaction of aggregate preferences. Now it should be obvious that on this view, one can't make clear-cut pronouncements on whether an action is moral or immoral since preferences aren't static/universal. It's my contention that there are scenarios in which more preferences are satisfied (by observers, the parents, etc.) by the tattooing of a baby then there are preferences dissatisfied by doing so. Also consider that the pain point (that tattooing a baby would hurt him/her) is essentially moot since children don't form memories until at least around three years old[1]. So any counter on pref. utilitarianism Pro may choose to run can really only take into account something like the aesthetic disutility of seeing a tattoo you got as a baby.If Pro wishes to bring up a justificatory counter in the next round, I'd be fine with providing some explanations showing why one should err on the side of preference utilitarianism as an ethic as opposed to whatever ethic Pro is proposing in defense of his position. Note that I don't need to show preference utilitarianism to be sound in itself, just that it's more sound/preferable than Pro's rival ethical system/philosophy/===Sources===[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Parents should not be allowed to tattoo their babies.

In light of the unfortunate forfeiting by both my opponent and myself, I'll elect to simply post a conclusion this round. Obviously, no new arguments can be brought.My own case in defense of my position was never even touched upon by Pro. I argued that on preference utilitarianism, one isn't in a position to pass blanket judgements on the morality or immorality of any specific action. It all depends on the specific situation under scrutiny. Pro never so much as responded to this point and as such, we may consider it conceded. Pro also failed to respond to my counters to her R1 case (the child abuse point for the most part). The reason for these concession lies in the fact that Pro's entire R2 post was plagiarized: [http://shine.yahoo.com...]I therefore urge a Con vote.
Parents should not be allowed to tattoo their babies.

The following stories are not about babies but about underage children. A North Carolina mom who moonlights as a tattoo artist figured it would be fine, and now she's in trouble with police for giving her 11-year-old daughter a tattoo. "She asked me to do it," 30-year-old Odessa Clay, who sports plenty of her own body art, told WCTI-TV. The tattoo is of a small heart near the girl's right shoulder. Related: Would you let your 10-year-old get a tattoo? Clay told the TV station that she thought minors could get tattoos as long as their parents approved; given that she's the girl's mother, she didn't think it would be a problem. Clay, who also hangs drywall and sells Mary Kay products, according to her public Facebook page, said that she used her own tattoo instruments and numbed her daughter's arm before permanently drawing on the outline of a heart. "I didn't fill it in," she said, adding that the girl was not in any pain. Related: Mommy Tattoos, the new trend for female celebrities? Given that she inked her daughter last year, but wasn't arrested until late September, Clay says that she thinks a former in-law told police about her daughter's body art in retaliation for the police report that Clay filed recently against her daughter's paternal grandfather. Clay is due in court next month to face a single count of tattooing a person under the age of 18, and has not been charged with child abuse. At least her daughter's tattoo is tiny. In June, a 13-year-old boy in Washington state went on a trip with a family friend and returned with a 6-inch tattoo of a dragon on his chest. "The parents were not happy about it," police told The Associated Press. "The parents would not have allowed or condoned it." Almost every state requires parental permission in order to tattoo a minor; in North Carolina and 13 other states, kids under age 18 can't get tattoos even if their parents do approve. (You can find a state-by-state listing of body art regulations here.) The reasoning is that kids, no matter how savvy they seem, aren't mature enough to make life-altering decisions on their own. Earlier this year, Chuntera Napier was arrested in Georgia and charged with child cruelty and being party to a crime after she allowed her 10-year-old son, Gaquan, to get a tattoo in honor of his late brother. "I always thought if a parent gives consent, then it's fine," Napier said in January. "How can somebody else say it's not OK? He's my child, and I have a right to say what I want for my child." Most of these parents are very wrong, a ten-thirteen year old is not in a position (at that young age) to make a big decision like that, to have something permanently inked into their body. And that is why there is a law against it.
Online(pro) vs offline poker(con)

Virtual currency is provided for free on majority of the poker sites, that is okay, but since it has no value people start going even before the first flop (basically as soon as the cards are handed) and that loses out the fun in poker. No face reading may help the ones who can't control themselves, but also you can't see the opponent's reaction after losing/winning, which adds to the fun element of offline poker. Emoticons are used only on some poker sides and even then it can't beat the real thing. As for deck limits, I think it shuffles the deck after each round, which increases unpredictability and reduces luck. Plus, the different type of dealer shuffles have different results, but there is no such variety in online poker. And if you say the dealer can cheat, online sites and players can cheat as well, both not proven yet. What's more, in offline poker you can do other stuff at the same time, such as drinking or eating something or playing asphalt 8 or another game on your phone. However, due to online poker's time limit, it is not possible to do multi-tasking easily. Pro concedes that internet connection is a bad side to online poker. Another thing is that sometimes players leave the game without leaving the table, leaving offline players whose timers keep on rolling for 1 or 2 rounds. In offline poker if someone leaves the cards are put in the deck quickly, the chips left go in the pot, and the turn passes quickly to the next person. Offline poker for life!
Online(pro) vs offline poker(con)

I'm okay with the debate not having any research or sources. They're very unneeded, as most of this debate seems to be opinion-based. Before I try to check your arguments though, I'd like to say that there is no actual answer to this debate. As I said before, it's completely opinion-based. But I'll play along anyway, because I guess I have nothing else to do. 1) No face-reading ---- My answer 1) I'm completely with you on this one. I know I have to debate against you, but that doesn't mean I'm supposed to be stupid. Face-reading is a huge part of poker. ---- Going against it 1) However, even if it is a big part of poker, it can also be a big relief to play without it. Maybe some guy out there is really bad at holding his face? Maybe he's just tired of losing, just because he's bad at holding a straight face? Then online poker is literally everything he would've wished for. 2) Virtual currency and its bad value ---- My answer 2) This argument really depends on which website you use. There are hundreds of poker websites out there. I don't play online poker often, but when I do, I play on my country's own website. It also really depends on how poker works on the websites you visit. Some poker sites are just for pure fun and you don't earn any money through them; some poker sites are real game, but you can't convert the money you've earned from there into real money, and some websites you can convert the money into real money. ---- Going against it 2) Now what you've actually written here isn't much of an argument, it's more of a fact. Some websites don't allow its players to convert the free money the website sometimes gives them, because the website'd lose money instead of gain it. You have to remember that if poker has to survive, it needs to profit. 3) Bad Internet connection ---- My answer 3) There really isn't much to talk about here. Sure, it's a bad thing, but that's just how the internet works. This isn't really poker host' fault, it's more your internet provider's fault. ---- Going against it 3) There is nothing I can say to go against it. Everything has its bad sides and this is just online poker's bad side. 4) Deck limits ---- My answer 4) This is exactly like my answer to your second argument. It really depends on which website you're playing on. The website I play on has a limited amount of decks, but I can imagine that a small amount of websites probably have unlimited decks. ---- Going against it 4) I don't have much to go against. I guess you just have to pick the right websites to play on. And if a person lives in a not-so-known country, which only has one poker website, then it's just bad luck. But as I said, it's probably more likely that you'll get into a poker website with limited decks than getting into one with unlimited. All in all, it's up to opinion. There's one more round coming up, so if I've written anything wrong or something that doesn't make sense, remember to quote it or go against it in your post! :)
Online(pro) vs offline poker(con)

Fine then I will bring up other points as to why offline poker is better than online poker- 1) Face-reading- There is no face reading in online poker, which is an important element. You can't study your opponent's reactions, for all you know he could be dancing on the other end. In offline poker you can tell the person has a good hand by that contained grin, twitching of the hands and the way he/she handles the chips. Online poker takes that out. 2) Virtual currency- As most online poker sites give free currency to players almost every week, many players don't value that currency and go all-in in the start of the round. If you have 2 decent cards, you either have to call his bluff or fold, and a lot can happen after the five cards unfold. 3) Internet connection- Sometimes when I had an extremely good hand, a flush to be precise, my internet connection suddenly went out and I couldn't bet and when it returned, I had won only about 500 virtual currency when I could have won about 90000 if I had been given a chance to call my opponent's all in. These kind of scenarios never happen in offline poker. 4) Shuffles- In online poker, if the processor's luck was good it could have about 12 kings in barely 3 rounds. Whereas in offline poker, there is a fixed number of cards (I think it is 2 or 3 decks) and you know that if one card has come it is less likely to come again. But online poker has infinite decks and no predictability. Please don't turn this into a research debate, I am too lazy for that.
Online(pro) vs offline poker(con)

The point of free virtual currency is to attract new and more players to online poker. The way the player uses the currency is his own fault. As I see it, the free currency is a great way to start off new players. Your opponent's reaction to winning or losing may be funny, but I don't think a lot of people play poker just for the reactions. Online poker is a great way to be able to play poker and win/lose money without having to go to the nearest bar. I'm not sure what you mean with "different types of dealer shuffles," but for the shuffle-cheating, I'm pretty sure offline poker has many more cheaters than in online poker. Multi-tasking can also be done in online poker, and it's even much easier and safer. If you begin playing a mobile game in real life while player offline poker, the chances are that someone is gonna cheat, without you knowing, but in online poker, nobody can cheat. For the players leaving, there really isn't much to do. Not a lot of people leave a game of online poker, as they usually just lose all money they've put in and don't gain anything. Online poker also gives lazy or scared people the ability to play poker. A lot of real life poker happens in bars or with thugs, whilst online poker can be played freely without having to go meet someone. Online poker also has much less cheating than offline poker, as there are nothing cheaters can do to cheat. I'd say both online and offline poker have their good and bad sides.