BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
So called "assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

"So you are implying that we ban anything that distracts people, is unnecessary, and is too dangerous? " Not every thing but activities that distract drivers( texting or talking on the phone) should be banned. They distract people's attention from the road, this can kill someone. "You can't ban everything because it can be potentially dangerous." Alcohol is dangerous either way. It damages your liver and other organs, it causes people to be in a stupor, and it plays apart in many car crashes. "It's not a matter of that I knew it, it was that it wasn't important to the debate and basically irrelevant." Actually, he got the gun from a hunting permit, it was a hunting gun. They are stronger than other guns since they are meant to take down animals so bringing him up was irrelevant. " I agreed with everything except why can a good citizen be allowed to shoot a gun at a range for recreational use?" Why do people always want to shoot real bullets? What satisfaction does it give the person to shoot real bullets at paper targets? Why not just do a paint ball match, less things could go wrong. Plus the injuries are less sever such as bruises. If they want to, they could shoot rubber bullets/pellets 9 mm and above. " so why can't citizens go to a gun range and shoot targets with rifles above 9mm." They can for training purposes with the gun( when they first get it). If they want to shoot they could just use a pea shooter, after all they are just shooting at paper targets or clay pigeons. They could shot with rubber bullets since that has less of a chance to kill some one.
So called "assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

So you are implying that we ban anything that distracts people, is unnecessary, and is too dangerous? Where does the line begin for just enough dangerous or too dangerous? Your absolutely absurd. You have the ideals of a nanny state leader. "That is a good solution but if you don't ban it, people can still drink and drive. If the police don't get them before they potentially crash, people can lose their life's." If you ban it and install heavy punishments for possession of it, people will be very afraid to drink and drive. You can't ban everything because it can be potentially dangerous. You should think more libertarian where you believe most things should be up to the individual person what he/she can have. You don't known that he would have killed them anyway. People who do extreme irrational things need to have some of mental illness or are taking some sort of psychiatric drug before killing people. http://www.wnd.com... Look up Dr. Peter Breggin on psychiatric drugs if you want to learn more. "How am I supposed to know what you know?" It's not a matter of that I knew it, it was that it wasn't important to the debate and basically irrelevant. A movement from cars to buses would be a slow process, however there would be more than enough time to adjust and allow more buses to be produced. Don't get too technical about it. You need to understand my point. There are a'lot of dangerous things in the world that kill far more people. Banning bayonet lugs and flash suppressers when there is no proof they truly assisted any criminal in a homicide case doesn't seem to make sense to me. "Actually, if you train with a gun, your performance would be better than if you just give a person a gun who is completely new to them." Yes, quite obvious. I'm just having trouble with what you replied to what I said with this. Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. "I think is is better just to remove powerful guns(9 mm and above) from the general public and leave powerful pistols/rifles to people who don't belong to hate groups, who have a clean background check, a clean sanity test, and who completed training with the gun and who will only use it for self defense only. Not for recreational use." I agreed with everything except why can a good citizen be allowed to shoot a gun at a range for recreational use? Anti gunners always talk about how there should be training with self defense weapons that way innocent casualties won't occur. (and technically I agree) so why can't citizens go to a gun range and shoot targets with rifles above 9mm.
So called "assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

Since there are two different terms, I will go with the legal term and not the political term which is "The United States law banned the manufacture and transfer of certain newly manufactured semi-automatic firearms and ammunition feeding devices (magazines)." ( wikipedia)Yes I certainly think they should restrict the type of assault guns allowed though not ban all of semi automatic pistols since they posses some characteristics of assault weapons like detachable magazines and automatically extracting the used cartridge out of the camber and replacing it with a new one. I think they should ban AK-47's and other weapons like it to reduce violence since they are basically military grade weapons. With semiautomatic pistols, they should require a background check. My personal opinion of semi automatic pistols is that they should decrease the caliber so if a person does decide to shoot, less damage would be done and possible less deaths. As for bullets, they should be less damaging so people who get shot aren't injured as badly. Since the caliber is decreased, owners would have to shoot more accurately which means if they get robbed, they would have to shoot at the knees, feet, or chest. They would be taught to do so when they are training with the fire arm. I also believe people with mental instabilities, like sudden anger or rage should not have possession of a gun for obvious reasons as they could shoot up a store with people in it for no reason. Military grade weapons should stay in the military and police guns should stay with the police. Even the police's guns should be down graded since there was that cop that shot a person in a movie theater for texting. With assault weapons like the AK-47 and others like it banned and semiautomatic that possess assault weapons qualities decreased in their abilities( fire power, bullet strength), there would be less deaths in crimes. This is my second debate so i am a little rusty.
should europe be torant towarda islam

First, I would like to apologize for missing a round. It was never stated whether missing a round would constitute an automatic loss, or just a loss of conduct. As this is a 5 round debate, there are plenty of rounds to adjust. I will continue debating under the assumption that it is merely a loss of conduct. First, going over my opponent's arguments, he points to many muslims being upset about the displaying of Muhammad in a cartoon as evidence that they hang on every single verse. This fails to prove that, and only shows that they hang on a particular verse. It also fails to show that all muslims do this. While thousands protested, hundreds of millions did not. More evidence that most muslims do not hold on to every single verse, only needs to point out a few nonsensical verses. "Allah's Apostle said, "None of you should walk, wearing one shoe only; he should either put on both shoes or put on no shoes whatsoever."" [1] "The Prophet forbade the wearing of a gold ring." [1] "Allah's Apostle said, "If you want to put on your shoes, put on the right shoe first; and if you want to take them off, take the left one first. Let the right shoe be the first to be put on and the last to be taken off."" [1] My opponent then goes on to suggest that peace and self defense cannot exist. I would like to direct my opponent (and any and all voters) here, to get a better understanding of how they are compatible [2]. Finally, my opponent points out that the Quran calls for all muslims to engage in Jihad, but he fails to actually talk about what Jihad really is. Jihad means, "strive" or "struggle." As frequently described in the Qur'an, Jihad is an internal struggle with one's personal demons [3]. Turning to the Qur'an's verses again, we can see how some verses are easily misconstrued by anti-muslim individuals. "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." Is a commonly quoted verse, but it fails to show to verses just behind it. "And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful," and "But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors." Note the "no aggression except against the oppressors." The Qur'an does not premit aggression, except in the act of self defense (fighting oppressors). [4] [1] http://www.masjidaljama.org... [2] http://www.peaceoverviolence.org... [3] http://islam.about.com... [4] http://quran.com...
should europe be torant towarda islam

many Muslims do not hold on to every single verse, rather they find the general message behind the text, and then find several key verses to support it (like the Christian "love thy neighbor" rather than "don't wear clothes made of multiple fabrics").really ? perhaps that's why there are so many Muslim outrage throughout the Europe. when Muhammad cartoons are published or when the film about Islam called fitna is released, there are o many Muslim violence all over Europe. Theo van gogh, the maker of the anti Islam film "submission" is brutally killed by a Muslim extremist. the proof of this are given in the following you tube links:Violent Muslim Protest Outside the Danish Embassy in Londonhttp://www.youtube.com...Violent Muslim Protests in Belgium http://www.youtube.com...Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the murder of Theo Van Gogh http://www.youtube.com...so from above discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that many Muslims do hold on to every single verse. sometime they remained silent but that doesn't mean the they are not supporting terrorism. it is a silent support. Islam promotes peace, and supports fighting as resistance from oppressors.this argument of my opponent's is self contradictory. peace and fight just cannot coexist.While there are a few extremists that warp the message, and don't act true to the real message of Islam, the entire religion should not be discriminated against because of them.my dear opponent please read sharia law. sharia clearly states that it is a communal obligation for Muslims to do jihad. it means every Muslim must do jihad "when they get a chance." some imams are openly calling Muslims to do jihad in public place. the following links will show that:al-Hawaiian gives solution to Muslims financial problems.wmvhttp://www.youtube.com..."We Ask a Person Nicely to Convert, But If He Refuses...We Fight Him" http://www.youtube.com...so I think I have established the fact that all Muslims are bound to jihad when they get a chance. so Islam is NOT A PEACEFULL RELIGION. it never was. it is a most violent form of terrorism. Europe must therefore bann the practise of Islam.
should europe be torant towarda islam

I will argue that Europe should be tolerant towards Islam, though we both share a BOP for this, my is to show that Europe, as a general rule of thumb, be tolerant to Islam, while my opponent's is that they should not. I hope that we can aviod petty "gotchya" semantics and have a good debate. First, let's get some definitions, since my opponent did not offer any. Tolerant [1] - "1.Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." Islam [2] - "1.The religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah." Religion [3] - "1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." Second, we need to look at what Islam teaches and preaches. Normally, people will turn to the Qur'an and look for various passages, however, like the bible, there are many different passages and through cherry picking, you can get any message you want out of it. For every verse of violence you find, I can find one for peace. Much like Christians, many Muslims do not hold on to every single verse, rather they find the general message behind the text, and then find several key verses to support it (like the Christian "love thy neighbor" rather than "don't wear clothes made of multiple fabrics"). So, rather than looking at every individual verse, we need to look at the message as a whole. Most Islam scholars are in agreement of the overall messages of Islam [4][5][6]. Islam promotes peace, and supports fighting as resistance from oppresors. While there are a few extremists that warp the message, and don't act true to the real message of Islam, the entire religion should not be discriminated against because of them. No more than should every Christian be discriminated against because of the views and actions of the Westboro Baptist chruch [7]. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com... [4] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [5] http://islam101.net... [6] www.princeton.edu/~rumi/files/warandpeace.ppt [7] http://www.google.com...
should europe be torant towarda islam

friends you all know in this era islam becomes a global threat towards humanity. those who read islamic sharia law, know well that islam banned arts, science, philosophy and all such thing that makes human great.in this era, i have heard that effort is going on to favor muslims in europe. example of such effort is trying to stop criticism of islam, label people as islamophobic and prosecute them. i am afraid that result of such effort would be petty deadly on human civilisation. therefore my suggesion is to stop praising islam. there is nothing praiseworthy in islam. what do you think ?
Atheism is false. Prove there is not a God. Evolution also. Prove the earth made itself/evolved.

Thank you for accepting! However you assume wrong. I am not a Christian nor a follower of the Pope. Christians do not follow Christ or the bible. Pope's are mostly gay and pedophiles. Not sent by God. I claim no religion. I challenge my opponent to offer proof that fossil records declare and such assertions and not just opinion given without facts off the top of one's own head. https://www.google.com... Google does not confirm this at all. Nor is your source listed on the internet. So if creation did not create itself who created it?
Atheism is false. Prove there is not a God. Evolution also. Prove the earth made itself/evolved.

The world and all of creation did not evolve. We have a common designer. Who calls Himself God, I Am that I Am. Prove the planet's accidentally keep their alignments? Why is God or Christ in our history? Who or what built the ancient artifacts, that can not be built today, or even explain how ancient peoples did all that. Why? For who. If God does not exist, Why debate it? That is like debating the reality of Mother Goose. I never debated Jack and Jill or Santa Clause. Because I know they do not exist in reality. Prove the bible is wrong about creation. Please do not confuse religion with what is actually written. Because the bible is about one man, The Alpha of the bible, His family named Israel and their impact on planet earth. Explain if all people's evolved, why is the Jew separate? And only Adam's family birth records are still kept though England and British Royal line to this very day?
Eating out everyday is fun!

I thank the instigator for instigating the debate.The Resolution is:Resolved: Eating out everyday is fun.My opponent must fill his BOP that eating out everyday is necessarily NOT fun.DefinitionsSince my opponent has not defined terms, I will define them.Eating out: Eat away from home: to consume a meal away from home, usually in a restaurant or similar establishment. (1)Fun: AmusementRebuttals "Food which is cooked at the restaurant are often adulterated and cooked in bad quality oils. This can affect our health immensly."My opponent has 1. Failed to provide a source for his argument.2. Failed to explain why this is necessarily NOT FUN. The resolution is that it is NOT FUN, not that it is NOT HEALTHY.Possible Ways Eating Out Can Be Fun1. Eating out can introduce you to new and different types of food that you have not tried before.2. Eating out can expose you to different ways of cooking.3. Eating out can save you the hassle of cooking at home.Conclusion My opponent has not fullfilled his BOP to affirm the resolution.Sources 1.http://www.bing.com...;2. http://www.bing.com...
Black Lives Matter is worse than the problem it wants to fix.

I said " I believe" because I am willing to admit that I am wrong and to answer your questions.Yes, I have researched Black Lives Matter.I never said that they were "horrid" but I do think quite poorly of them for reasons I will soon list.The reason I believe they cannot fix the thing they claim to be trying to change is that it does not exist.Sources are linked at the bottom.So far in 2016 881 people have been killed by police. Of those people 23% (202) were black and 44% (388) were white when you take into account that black people make up 14.4% of the population it appears that black people are nearly twice as likely to be shot by police; But in 2012 white men murdered 4,582 people compared to black men who murdered 5,531 people, which demonstrates that while they are twice as likely to be shot they are at least 4 times as likely to commit violent crime adjusted, for this it seems black people are treated more leniently by police officers than whites. In response to this "systemic racism" Black Lives Matter organizes riots such as this and this , divisive, rhetoric such as this which has led to nation wide distrust of police officers.Thank you for reading I look forward to seeing your response.Sources: Police shooting statistics https://www.washingtonpost.com...;Black population statisticshttp://blackdemographics.com...Black crime rate statisticshttp://www.breitbart.com...
New Vegas is the best fallout in the series

As you have mentioned, Defining a fallout game is hard, Due to the varied nature of the series. However, I beleive I have found a solution. If we can't define what a fallout game is, We can at least define what a fallout game is not. Which leads me to fallout 76. Wheter you beleive that game was mediocre of awful, The general consensus on the internet is that its not a great example of a fallout game. Here are some complaints. 1) It does not remotely resemble a RPG 2) Its a glitchy mess that's was rushed out the door 3) It ignores the lore of the series. I feel new vegas hits these 3 points beat for beat. 1) It does not resemble a RPG Alright, Fallout new vegas's gameplay is fun (when it works, More on that later). But and RPG? Rpg themselves have a lose definitions. Fallout New vegas in my opinon is fun shooter set in a relatively open world with RPG elements. This however, Is its own debatable subject. 2) Its a glitchy mess that was rushed out the door. Fallout new vegas was pitched, Developed and released in about two years. The development team had about several diffrent plans for the game, None of which came into fruition. Do to the timetable they were forced to release it in its current state. Since then, Multiple reports have come in of the game crashing, You can perform simple glitches to get infinite money and infinite XP, People frequently found their character stuck and unable to move, The list goes on. 3) Why does vault-tec have such little influence over the new vegas world? All we really get is a vault or two across the Mojave. To me at least, This takes away the feeling of the fallout series. So what is the best fallout game? Personally, I'm split between 2 and 3. Although I think New Vegas is more fun, I personally beleive that fallout 2 is the most fallout fallout game. Im short on time so goodbye.
Humans deserve rights.

what does immortality have to do with anything? if humans didn't have rights then people would ravage cities and kill each other. its a morals type deal really. human rights are based off morals. like someone growing up in the fifties is gonna think blacks don't deserve rights where as the youth of today couldn't care less. face it. it all dumbs down to how you grew up thinking and learning and developing your personal morals and mindset
Humans deserve rights.

The fact that Pro agrees that humans do not deserve the rights to ravage cities and kill each other proves that, at the very least, Pro sees that rights are not always inherently deserved to human beings.Pro then comes up with a nihilistic, subjectivist approach to morality and human rights, which implies that no right is inherently human but rather subjectively seen as being so despite lack of any objective proof. I agree with Pro on this matter.
Net Neutrality

Much Gratitude Tyler. I will be defending my previous case to ensure a solid win.Solidifying Main Contention - Resource prioritization is just and non-discriminatoryThe idea of abandoning the concept of net neutrality is just under social terms. Google as well as Microsoft have taken measures in preventing the spread of abusive images such as child abuses(1). The action taken is morally and socially just in order to prevent paedophiles and rape from laying out their agendas. Without this firm action, abusive images would be just 1 click away in a search engine. Therefore, these actions are just. Resource prioritization should be given on other aspects, such as education, not one which serves as a detriment to society.Just for the sake of net neutrality, that factor alone will cause these things to happen and we have job as human beings to prevent that to ensure that our children will live a better life, free from harassment. This case alone, warrants that net neutrality be dropped regardless of the bullies made by the regulators.Tyler, the concept is justifiable even in discriminatory terms.You are essentially establishing correlation where none exist and at its best and worst, illogical. Like I said before, the complexity of technology allow nothing else except resource prioritization. This is just a matter of supplying each to its own needs. If we have extra incentives without even using them, what is the point of having it in the first place?Thus, the concept of egalitarianism is flawed. Consider this, Social Darwinism for example. It dictates survival of the fittest. This is highly evident in nature, but it cannot be applied to humans because we have a 'different way'. Likewise, the same can be said with technology. Your case is simply touching things in vacuum.Strengthening rebuttals - Concepts and actions are both inconclusiveTyler, you are proffering a case where regulators abused their privileges. As what was outlined above, the concept is justified irrespective of its peers. If its peers abused it, this is a matter of authority, not the concept itself. The concept remains just, hence I have proved my case.Tyler, with all due respect, your case is simply a case study, an isolated one if we look at the bigger picture. One abusive act hardly represents anything. Which do you prefer? Abusive images of juveniles or a few mishandled actions?. No system is perfect. Anti-Trust laws are irrelevant, the company abused its privileges, therefore its the company's fault, not the concept adhering to opponents of net neutrality. The abuse of net neutrality is even more severe than a few losses made.ConclusionHis contention of door mat companies have been successfully rebutted. He did not provide sufficient sources or evidence to support his case(other than definitions) while I have bolstered mine by the following source below.Tyler's notion is disapproved. The resolution is negated.Sources(1)http://www.bbc.com...