BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberalism is a mental disorder

Yeah you made some serious mistakes! You were lying! LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR You are just some pupet for the democratics! You keep lying to everyone. You hate yahoo answers! I bet you do. You are trying to get me to join those liberals! I will never join you! You are the worst debater on this site. FK U! LIAR! AYE! AFDDFSFNSDKJFNSDKJFN DOODLE DOODLE! HA HA!
The Republican Party is not right-wing

To begin, I'd like to reference a poll that i will be using later in my rebuttal. According to a pew research poll only 30% of republicans are identified as moderate or liberal. That's much less than 50% or above. Using your opinions of conservative values however, you are still incorrect. The idea that because Republicans are not currently trying to sign into federal law a ban on same-sex marriage they are not conservative is wrong because trying to do so would be obstructionist to conservative values. on 9/1/1998 democrat president Bill Clinton had to sign into law H.R. 3396, better known as the Defense of marriage Act, federally defining marriage as between one man and one woman and therefor banning it on a federal level. This act was introduced by republican Bod Barr on on 5/7 that same year. It had 106 (90%) republican cosponsors, passed through the house and senate with an 84.4% Republican yes vote. So what happened to it? It was found unconstitutional in 2013 by the supreme court. It is only being protected on the state level because that is the only place that it can be. I find it strange that you define non-interventionism as a conservative value when what you cited explained that anti-war policies are not conservative but moderate. That aside, your definition plays to my favor. Only 41% of republicans approve of the Afghanistan war - a war that went into action under the bush administrations policy of a "preventive war" strategy - a strategy proclaimed by intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum as an imperial strategy. As to secession, I could not find any specific stats on republican views of allowing secession, but, using two stats, I've managed to find my own ruff estimate of 80% approval of allowing secession. View below to see equation. http://www.gpo.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.govtrack.us... http://www.people-press.org... http://www.people-press.org... http://www.gallup.com... 25% approval of allowing secession among the U.S people as a whole 33% republican base during this time in the U.S. 33% of 25% is 80%.
The Republican Party is not right-wing

Republicans have fought incredibly hard against liberals. Only 7 states and D.C. have not implemented any state laws regarding same-sex marriage, whereas 28 states have undertaken laws with the purpose to cut down on same-sex marriage and even ban it altogether." Then why don't the Republicans fight the Democrats by proposing a bill that would make the federal government reject homosexuality and make it illegal? Because to The Republicans, money always seems to trump morals. "The house passed the keystone bill on Nov, 14, 2014. " This alone proves that the GOP is not conservative, because what is less conservative than destroying the Earth for financial gain? "So I'm confused, is interventionism, or non-interventionism conservative?" Non-interventionism is a conservative belief, while interventionism is imperialism, which is not a conservative value. "nothing seems less conservative than secession. I can't think of more of a change, but, I suppose, nothing says I love my country like leaving it." Anti-secessionism, like what is found in the GOP, is, in actuality, pro-imperialism, which, again, is not a conservative belief. "Nothing says I love my country like leaving it." The United States was technically not supposed to be a country, but rather, a confederation of sovereign states. Unfortunately, The Civil War changed that. We are longer "these united States", we are The United States. The States were supposed to be countries. If the government had followed conservative beliefs, kids would be standing up every day in school to pledge allegiance to their State's flag. Secession in this case is simply breaking away, peacefully of course, from a federation that was not designed to be permanent.
The Republican Party is not right-wing

You, my friend, have not truly provided an argument. You simply said that my argument is my opinion. Based on the definition of conservative, I have proven that the GOP is not conservative, as it does not even attempt to propose legislation that would conserve America's social, cultural, and economical way of life. Sure, there are SOME conservative Republicans, and there are SOME liberal Republicans, but in the long run, the GOP has not proven themselves to be conservative by actually fighting liberalism. This alone proves that they are not conservative, or if they are, they don't care enough to stand up for what they believe in, for some reason.
The Republican Party is not right-wing

Hello con. Before we truly start the debate, let's define conservatism and the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing". Right-wing: "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system." Left-wing: "the liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political party or system." So, I think that for this debate, it would be fair to say that right-wingers are conservatives, and left-wingers are liberals. Let's define those terms. Conservative: "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." Liberal: "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." So, the question is, do Republicans fit the definition of right-wing or conservative? The answer, by the definitions, is a clear and resounding "NO!" Both major political parties in The United States support liberalism in one form or another. For the sake of time, let's not discuss the Democratic Party. I think it is fair to say that without a doubt, Democrats are more liberal then Republicans. However, this does not make the Republicans conservative. It only makes them less liberal, not conservative. There is a difference. Have The Republicans discarded traditional values for new ideas? Absolutely. Are The Republicans cautious about change in religious values? No, they are not. Today, around half of all Republicans support same-sex marriage, compared to a mere 18% around 100 years ago. It is commonly accepted that supporting traditional marriage is a conservative belief, and it fits the definition of conservative. Around 52% of Republicans support The War on Terror, and using the military to achieve the victory. War has never been classified as a traditionalist value, only self-defense. The Republican Party is almost unanimously against secession and self-determination. These have always been seen as traditionalist, conservative values. Now that The Republican Party has control of the House and the Senate, they should be able to completely turn the country around if they are really conservative. They could dismantle Obamacare, turn back Amnesty, securing the USA borders, stop abortion, overturn gun restrictions, and a whole host of other things real conservatives would do when they took power. And that should be only the beginning. They could stop immigration altogether, both legal and illegal. They could overturn Roe VS Wade which legalized abortion. They could force The Democrats completely out of power and make a one-party state as they did during reconstruction.(And keep in mind that was a completely different Republican Party.) The Republicans are also almost unanimously against public show of religion, especially in public schools. Religion is pretty much classified as THE most important conservative value. The Republicans are also, again unanimously, in favor of interracial marriage. Interracial marriage defeats the very definition of conservative. Interracial marriage destroys the races. Does that sound conservative to you? There are, sadly, almost NO politicians in The United States that are true conservatives anymore.
Death Penalty

For the sake of concluding the debate, I will respond to my opponent's arguments. I will, out of respect for my competitor (since he will not be able to answer after this round), refrain from adding any new evidence or significant information to the debate. Now, I will proceed to reinstate my previous arguments in conclusion because my opponent has presented no new arguments and now agrees with my arguments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seeing as my opponent now agrees with my arguments, his previous information and ideas are now rendered inconsequential. Like I said in my previous arguments, the death penalty hasn't contributed to the decrease in crime rates over the past couple years and it costs more than a life-sentence case. We cannot base the killing of a criminal on the sole feeling of craving revenge. We must teach the world that murder is wrong through rehabilitation and educating our youth, not by adding more deaths to the count because we (barbarically) think that we should kill a murderer the same way that they had killed their victim.
Death Penalty

Your right, you have confinced me otherwise. We should focus more on rehabilitating our criminals rather than punishing them. But I don't want to spoil the debate, so I'll play Devils advocate for now. It almost isn't about lowering the crime rate, it's about punishing the criminal. Perhaps some killers can be rehabilitated, but the ones who kill violently must pe punished for theyre heinous crimes. A person who commits an inhumane killing should know what they're victims suffered.
Death Penalty

Capital Punishment is a good thing. But it should only be used when necessary. 4% of death penalty cases have killed an innocent person since it was reinsted in 1970 (Forbes). However, I will only support the death penalty in this argument be if there is foolproof evidence, such as DNA or Video evidence, in order for it to be given as punishment. Also the crime has to be heinous and absolutely horrific for the person to be given the death penalty, and they should have to die in the same way as they're victim died. If they kill a person without that persons consent, than they should have to experience it too.
Death Penalty

Sure, I'm up for the challenge since a lot of people seem to support it. I will be against the death penalty, and my challenger will be for the death penalty. Let's begin. This round will only be for acceptance, but I will provide people with the basic definition of death penalty. A death penalty is "the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime (1)." A capital offense/crime is "a crime, such as murder or betrayal of one's country, that is treated so seriously that death may be considered an appropriate punishment (2)." The 3 main capital crimes are espionage, treason, and murder. Back to you, Pro :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "Death Penalty." Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. (2) "Capital Offense." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
The 2nd Amendment.

Thank you for your quick response. You stated in one of your earlier arguments that "The US government has built in checks, such as the separation of powers, term limits, government transparency, independent state governments, and a multitude of other checks that were designed to prevent a totalitarian government." These checks were DESIGNED to prevent a totalitarian government, but that does not mean that it WILL prevent a totalitarian government from arising in the future. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely..."[1] This well-known quote by Sir John Dalberg-Acton captures my point. Even the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers put in place, as great as they are, would not be able to stop a radical, power-hungry politician and his party from becoming a totalitarian government. With 2/3 of the vote in congress, the government would be able to amend the constitution. The future power-hungry president could then appoint supreme court justices that agree with his same ideology. When the right combination comes along, it would be nearly impossible to stop the takeover, but I and many other Americans would try. I know this is once again one of those what-if statements, but it is very possible. If and/or when this does happen, I would want to have the ability and resources to fight against that totalitarian government even if the chances of victory are slim, as they were during the Revolutionary War. Now on to the main argument. My opponent argues, "If we made hand guns illegal, criminals would not be able to get them and these precautions would be enough to defend home." When alcohol was made illegal in the Prohibition era[2], (1919-1933) it caused many problems. For example, the black market thrived during this time. They illegally smuggled in alcohol to the U.S. and, because of this, the consumption of liquor increased. Making alcohol illegal certainly did not stop criminals from getting it. I visited the website that you posted in your previous argument. Besides it being a biased website, promoting gun control, it did say that nearly all illegal guns start out as legal weapons. While this may be accurate, it does not state the effects that banning guns will have if and AFTER the legislation is passed to remove the 2nd amendment. The effects will be the same as when alcohol was banned. The black market will thrive not in smuggling alcohol, but smuggling guns. Therefore, it will be ONLY the criminals and the government with guns. Although nowadays, criminals and the government go hand in hand. Repealing the 2nd amendment would not stop criminals from obtaining guns. It would only stop the law-abiding citizens from getting them. Thus society would be less safe. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you for being a great opponent. No matter who wins, I thoroughly enjoyed debating this issue.
The 2nd Amendment.

It is what sets debate aside from argument, discussion from fight. Now moving on to my opponents arguments. I am going to move in the same order he did, in order to make the round easier to understand. In response to the point he entitles 1): Yes, Britain did not expect the colonies to win, nor did much of the world, but that does not in any way mean a rebellion in the US today would have any chance of succeeding and their plight is very different than during the Revolutionary War. First, Britain was across the Atlantic Ocean. The US government would not have to ship troops and supplies from 3,000 miles oversea to meet an enemy that knows the territory better. Second, the colonial militias did not have to fight tanks, air force, or other advanced weaponry. Perhaps they were at a disadvantage technologically, but fighting with an inferior musket is much different than using a handgun to fight a fully armored tank. Next, to respond to his point entitled 2): The reason our Founding Fathers put in the right to bear arms was because AT THAT TIME, the US was still a young country and the Founding Fathers feared having to fight another enemy, rightfully so considering the war of 1812. The Founding Fathers understood that there was no US standing army, and used the people as a sort of constant minutemen by encouraging the right to bear arms. But today, there has been no act of war on US soil since Pearl Harbor and the citizens have a standing army to protect them, making the right to carry firearms pointless. Moving on to my opponent's response to my offensive argument. My opponent, in effect, states that criminals would continue to find guns, even if they were outlawed and hte only people injured would be the already law abiding citizens. Unfortunately for my opponent, he overlooks where these guns originate. According to . http://www.guncontrol.ca..., virtually all of illegal hand guns begin as legal hand guns which are then sold privately or stolen from their original owners. If the US was to place a ban on hand guns, these illegal guns would not exist and there would be less violence within the US. If a person wishes to defend themselves in their home, get an alarm, a dog, or pepper spray. If we made hand guns illegal, criminals would not be able to get them and these precautions would be enough to defend home. I look forward to my opponent's responses. Thank you
The 2nd Amendment.

1) This is the same argument that Britain used more than 200 years ago. No one seriously thought that a few rebels fighting for their right to freedom would actually overcome the largest and best Navy in the whole world, not to mention their army. But low and behold, here we are exercising our right to freedom of speech, enjoying the victory of our Founding Fathers. Moreover, the men and women in the military are some of the most patriotic among us. They sacrifice daily protecting the very freedoms that a totalitarian government would take away. Citizens in the military would be the first ones to oppose the totalitarian government thus, refuting my opponent's argument that the "citizens" would not stand a chance. I believe he meant to say civilians. 2) Yes it is true that the U. S. government built in checks to avoid becoming a totalitarian government. But, once again, why would our Founding Fathers write in the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " They knew that it was possible that even the United States government could become too powerful. This is almost getting off topic but I felt that I must answer to my opponent's arguments. In refutation of your offensive argument, making handguns illegal would not create a safer society. People who commit the aforementioned violent crimes are non-law abiding citizens. The non-law abiding citizens will not give their guns up to the government whereas the law-abiding citizens will let the government take their guns, in adherence to the law. Therefore, when a non-law abiding citizen somehow endangers a citizen who follows the law, the law-abiding citizen cannot protect him/herself. Guns would then only be sold to criminals through avenues such as the black market. This would increase the amount of crime in America. Thus making it less safe. When guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, they can protect themselves from the CRIMINALS who should not have guns. Thank you for providing me with a very interesting 1st debate. I look forward to your counter-arguments.
The 2nd Amendment.

My opponent at this point has presented one argument for consideration: If the people do not have the right to bear arms, a tyrannical government can become too controlling. I will start but rebutting this argument and then move on to my primary argument. First, my opponent's argument relies on the assumption that the only way to stop a tyrannical government is with guns. I would argue that 1) if the US government really wanted complete control, a unorganized citizen army wielding handguns would not be enough to stop them and 2) the US government has built in checks to prevent just what my opponent fears, checks that are more effective than allowing private citizens to keep weapons. 1) A citizen army could not stop a trained government funded standing army such as the US. With tanks, missiles, radar, and more than a million fighting members, the citizens would not stand a chance. This makes my opponent's reasoning that the 2nd amendment stop tyranny fallacious and should not be given any weight in this round. 2) The US government has built in checks, such as the separation of powers, term limits, government transparency, independent state governments, and a multitude of other checks that were designed to prevent a totalitarian government. The 2nd amendment was important when these checks were not in place back in the Revolutionary War when it was written, but is now outdated and useless, providing more harm than good. Now moving on to my offensive argument. Primarily, the right to bear arms causes more harm than good for private citizens. 4 out of 5 violent crimes in America are performed with easily concealed and easily gained handguns. By making hand guns illegal and decreasing the number of firearms in circulation, the US government would be creating a safer society for the people of the United States, and because a government's highest duty is to protect the people, I offer the impact of creating a safer society as the impact with the greatest magnitude in the round. By showing that removing the 2nd amendment would create a safer society, I urge a negative ballot on this round. Thank you
The 2nd Amendment.

"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." The 2nd amendment was written for the primary reason of limiting the power of the Federal Government. When the People have the right to keep and bear arms, the government cannot take over the people in the form of a totalitarian government. The People have the ability to resist when they have the right to keep and bear arms. The Declaration of Independence states, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Founding Fathers knew that if and when the government became destructive of the People's Rights, The People needed to have the ability and resources to overthrow that government, and institute a new one. If The People's Right to keep and bear arms is taken away, they do not have the resources to abolish the government when that government becomes tyrannical. I welcome my opponent's viewpoints and will present more arguments supporting the 2nd Amendment in the later rounds.