BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Second Amendment does not Protect Against Oppressive Government

First: I do not feel obligated to debate whether or not an armed populace would be able to carry out a revolution on its own because this question was not clearly stated during any of the rounds and was only posted in the comments after I posted by first argument. Now going back to the intentions of the second amendment... Rebuttal: "It is clear that from pretty much the establishment of Jamestown the British were intent on colonising the west. The Manifest Destiny was chiefly aimed at the Mexican territories, as well as the remnants of Native American resistance in the far west. The intentions were also known by the French, who took possession of pretty much all the land between the Thirteen Colonies and the Colorado River, hence all the French-sounding places in the Midwest and Canada, such as Detroit, Michigan, Illinois, Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh), Louisiana, Quebec, etc." This complete argument is not valid because you are not relating these events in a chronological order in which they occurred in history. For example, the British began colonizing America in the early 1700s. The Manifest Dynasty occurred in 1844. Also, the French started their colonization at a very similar time that the British started theirs and once these European nations had established their colonies, the biggest disputes were between boundary lines. Thus these, among other inadequate parallels don't seem to prove that the American intentions since the start of the war was to move west. Your arguments in the second paragraph are abstruse and hard to connect to your main idea which is that the second amendment was established to defend against Indians. Therefore I will just emphasize one key idea of the Bill of Rights. During the time the Bill of Rights was generated George Washington (a federalist was president). Federalists (definition taking from The American Pageant;A US History High School Textbook) : Proponents of the 1787 Constitution , they favored a strong national government, arguing that the checks and balances in the new Constitution would safeguard the people's liberties. (Let it be noted that this constitution favored Federalism). This constitution that was favored by federalists was passed for the 13 colonies leaving the anti federalists (people against strong national government) uneasy. The Bill of Rights was written by antifederalist James Madison about 1 year after the constitution was published. Fearing that a strong national government would not defend the rights of the people he essentially created an extension to it that created amendments that were meant to safeguard most of Americans precious principles. Among these principles was the right to bear Arms. A strong national government obviously would be able to easily oppress their citizens, so in the eyes of James Madison, the 2nd amendment would clearly deem a logical defense against this. And I did state that I would not respond to your argument concerning an armed populace but back in the early 1800s an armed American populace would be very much be able to defend themselves against their national government. Your turn! :)
The Second Amendment does not Protect Against Oppressive Government

I accept your argument. I disagree with your statement which seems to be implying that the Second Amendment was created for the purpose of defending against Indian Raids. Evidence this is your argument. "Naturally, the Native Americans would be a touch irritated if people from the East came West and said: 'This is our land now, your land is that desert we didn't want a few hundred miles down the road'." The bill or rights was established far before America had made any serious purchases of land out west and before there were any great migrations to move out west. The laws that were established as incentives to move out west were not even established yet. The bill of rights (which holds the second amendment) was established following the constitution to protect the rights of the average individual as so they had reasons to speak up against an oppressive government because it is written in law. Example: The First Amendment prohibits the government to prohibit the freedom of speech or religion. Similar to the second amendment, the first amendment makes it clear that the government cannot oppress a person's right to speak their opinion. The Bill of Rights was invented by Anti-Federalists. Federalists valued the importance of federal powers. Anti-Federalists being afraid that they would abuse their powers pushed for the establishment of the bill of rights which established some basic rights of man. Therefore the second amendment makes more sense to be an addition in the defense of an oppressive government. It is not the turn of my opponent. :)
The Second Amendment does not Protect Against Oppressive Government

The Second Amendment was not created for the population to be able to resist an oppressive government. It was created to both give the population the illusion that they could resist tyranny, so that they would not feel motivated until the other members of their 'Well-Regulated Militia' took up arms, leading to perpetual inaction; and to aid in colonising the land west of the Thirteen Colonies. Naturally, the Native Americans would be a touch irritated if people from the East came West and said: 'This is our land now, your land is that desert we didn't want a few hundred miles down the road'. As Al Capone said, "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word. " The colonists would have firearms to defend their settlements and attack any obstacles, and the militia would fend off any massed opposition. I have other arguments, but I don't want to use all my ammunition, so to speak, in R1.
The Second Amendment does not Protect Against Oppressive Government

I shall begin with my rebuttals :)Rebuttal"You still haven't given any sort of scenario in which the Second Amendment would protect against an oppressive government, or any possible application of the Second Amendment to protect against oppressive government."Your first round argument was centered on why the second amendment was not made to defend against an oppressive government so in my mind it seemed apparent to me that you were arguing why the second amendment was created. Nevertheless, even if you cite examples where an armed populace fails to overthrow an oppressive government, it still does not refute the mentality had that by being armed they would be able to defend themselves.In fact many colonists during the time felt that when they defeated the British, they were overthrowing an oppressive government.Rebuttal:"Also, you naively assume that the United States had any more representation of the people than the Thirteen Colonies had. In both cases, it was the landowning class that wanted to expand westwards, to acquire larger holdings."This statement is confusing but I think you are trying to state that despite the many popular political parties in the North that wanted to end the expansion of slavery, the slave-holding south still wanted to..Rebuttal:"Also, abolitionism could hardly be described as a strong force in the early period of the USA. The cotton industry was ever-expanding, and the constitution protected the trade; and actually, the British, with all their repression, actually promised slaves that fought for them freedom in the event of victory."Uncle Tom's Cabin, a abolitionist book sold over 1 million copies in the North.Conclusion:I cite the bill of rights when discussing the second amendment because all of the first ten amendments were passed at the same time on the bill of rights. They all generally had the same intention, to safe guard the liberties of the citizens, that they could never be oppressed.. The second amendment is no exception.
The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.

You: I see your point about prey not "giving itself up" to its predator" Me: Cool You: but my point is not about animal or human instinct but more or less why there is life and why life has any point; not whether death supports life. Me: This is understandable, but not your assertion which, was that the Meaning of life is to support life. you go on to say, that there wouldn't be life without this support. I countered by with examples, like the ocean, the water (non-living things that support life. I also asked you where death (a very natural part of life) fits in if the whole point of life is to support other life. I think I have stayed very close to the terms of this argument..(without self-inflicting wounds) And yet you continue to impose your value on the meaning of all life (it'd be okay, if it were just your own) by saying things like: You: Therefore, wouldn't the only reason life continues be because in the past living things died (not necessarily giving themselves up) to support future life; as well as different species evolving to support life whether they evolved to adapt to climate or to hunt prey or grow food etc., Me: Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory, but it doesn't hold up for things like death, or the extinction of species. Life is equally destructive (unsupportive) as it is creative (supporting). That is why the survival of the fittest theory is so prominent. You: So, what about the "circle" of life? The supposed "Live, die, and your death supports new life?" What about how everyone dies but their death brings more life to other creatures. Me: So what about how fossil turns into petroleum, or diamonds..these things though valuable, do not necessarily nurture life. Your points are compelling, but to go as far as to say that it is the definitive meaning of life, I believe is a step too far. You: These are people who do not care for others and do not respect life. People who have done amazing things to support the human race though, we remember them kindly and instead of being forgotten they are remembered and have had an impact on future life for the better. Leaving their memory with more respect than that of someone who did not aid in supporting life or advancing our species. Me: Oh my gosh.. cruelty marks our memories and our souls, just as much, if not more than kindness... Yes Ghandi, but also Pol Pot.. Yes Isaac Newton... but also Hitler... and so on memories, both good and bad stick with us...and this too, I think is a survival mechanism!!! Thanks for listening
The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.

I see your point about prey not "giving itself up" to its predator, but my point is not about animal or human instinct but more or less why there is life and why life has any point; not whether death supports life. Therefore, wouldn't the only reason life continues be because in the past living things died (not necessarily giving themselves up) to support future life; as well as different species evolving to support life whether they evolved to adapt to climate or to hunt prey or grow food ect. So, what about the "circle" of life? The supposed "Live, die, and your death supports new life?" What about how everyone dies but their death brings more life to other creatures. Step back for a moment and think of the population of earth. So, how many people were born on the 12th of January in 2001? How many people love the color red? How many people are married? How many are under the age of 18? Does any of this information matter enough to be considered life's meaning? Now, step back again and think of how many more people are born every day, how quickly the population is expanding, how many new technological advances are happening as you read this; these are reasons we all live, making us more invested in this information than others. Now, we think of people who are unkind and unrespecting of life and we think of these people lowly, as if they are terrible and sickly. These are people who do not care for others and do not respect life. People who have done amazing things to support the human race though, we remember them kindly and instead of being forgotten they are remembered and have had an impact on future life for the better. Leaving their memory with more respect than that of someone who did not aid in supporting life or advancing our species.
The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.

Hi!! I do not accept that the meaning of life is to support other life and create change. The argument, or your layout of it, falsely imposes the human characteristics of altruism or selflessness onto nature, without any logical basis. You have erroneously situated the food chain as the end (to support life) and not the means to an end (survival), but according to our scientific and lay apprehension of the world, we know that self-preservation is the driving force behind nature, i.e, the gazelle does not deliver itself up to the lion, the flower does seek out the herd, but rather flees danger, and seeks out sun and nutrients, respectively. And as far as your stipulation that only living things that support life should live, we have only to use the example of the largest supporters of life on the planet, and that is water and sun. These are not living things and yet without them there would be no life on this planet. Conversely, how would you even justify the concept of death, an end to which all living things move, in a system where the purpose and meaning or end of life is to support life? There must be destructive as well as constructive forces in life. The motivation for change, or adaptations/mutation/evolution again has survival as its prime motivation, not altruism or the want to be remembered. This is an exaggerated imposition of human traits onto nature. But even as far as humans are concerned, change is inevitable, the individual will change as he evolves/moves toward the end of life. There is no objective measurement for what changes result in one being remembered, or indeed how or when remembrance came to be the primary motivation behind life, or the changes one makes in his life. And lastly, the number of breaths or changes that people make during their lives have nothing to do with life, which is quantitatively and qualitatively the same. You are either alive, or you are not. There are children who die within a few hours of childbirth, and though they never had the opportunity to support another life or affect change, (beyond their brief time on this earth), it is possible that they will be remembered until the end of some interested party's days... This was painful...lol. Thank you very much for your time and attention
The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.

If no living thing supported other life their would be no life. For example leaving a child in the wilderness but plants and animals could not support the child the child would have nothing to eat and therefore die. If plants could not feed other living things animals of all sorts wouldn't be able to sustain life. And other animals would be unable to feed their predators, ect. So, why should a living thing live if life can not continue after it? This provokes creativity and the want to make a change in the world. So they will be remembered and their life and death will matter. Because if their is nothing to remember someone for, the person therefore had no life. No one remembers the explorers that aided Lewis and Clarke but they provoked a change in the world and their life had meaning. We have knowledge of their existence even if we don't know their name or birthday; because life is not measured by the number of breaths you take it is measured by the impact you have left on this world.
The Christian God exists

You presented some good rebuttals, and since I don't have much to rebut I'll just get into my first argument: Jesus Christ.Before claiming that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of Man I'll present my proof for his existence.1. The New Testament.The New Testament of the bible is mainly composed of four Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who were four of Jesus' closest followers. These books were written decades after the death of Jesus Christ by four different men who wrote them at different times and on different continents of the Earth. The fact that all of their contents of the retelling of the life of Jesus match up is incredible and disproves any theory that the story of Jesus is fictional.2. The teachings of Jesus and how they lived on.Claiming to be the son of God and the saviour of all mankind is an aggresive move for anyone and brings many to the conclusion that Jesus must have been insane. Why then, would an insane man claim to be the son of God himself and then proceed to live the most humble life imaginable, never once proclaiming the greatness of his power or demanding respect? There have obviously been many men insane or otherwise that have claimed to be God or the Messiah or something of similar grandeur, but none have lived on with humility that Jesus has. Why Jesus has been worshipped since his death and all others have not is another major proof that he is who he claimed to be.3. The Shroud of TurinThe Shroud of Turin is, as you most likely know, believed to be the cloth that Jesus Christ was wrapped in when he was laid in the tomb. The negative image of this cloth shows an image of a man that bears all the physical features of Jesus as described in the Bible, including the holes in his hands and feet and the hole poked in he side of his abdomen. It has been dated several times by several different methods and has been found by some means to be about 600 years old and by others around 2000. Either way, the way that the image is burned into the fabric is what has baffled critics and scientists. It is burned into the fibers in such a way that could only be replicated in the 21st century with laser technology and there is no current explanation as to how in this time period an image such as this could have been obtained. The only explanation is that Jesus Christ was really laid in this cloth and that it was He who created this image.Before you go on saying that this debate is on the existence of God and not Jesus, remember that every source and everything Jesus has ever told us says that Jesus and God are one and the same. And since we are debating the existence of the Christian God, the existence of Jesus Christ proves the existence of God.
The Christian God exists

Thanks for accepting, Pro.Rebuttal1. "I would like to begin by asking you how you believe that you came into existence....how [do] you think that you and every other thing in this universe came to be"Short answer: I don't know. I'm not sure how the universe came into being. However, I think "God did it" is a cop-out; you know as little as I about the origin of the universe, and I find it silly to invent an all-powerful being to fill in the gaps. Although it is possible that God created the universe, it's also possible that Oden created the universe, or the flying spaghetti monster. I'd need a little more than just a possibility to accept that something happened. Again, I don't know what caused the universe, and I'm fine with that.2. "Could it have been as simple as a big bang?"Yes. There is no reason to overcomplicate the origin of the universe, and it is definitely possible for the big bang to have happened, just as it is possible that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe with an explosion of sauciness. Although there are problems with the big bang, I find it to be the best model we currently have for explaining the origin of the universe. However, even if you disproved the big bang and left not a shadow of a doubt in anyone's mind that it was false, it wouldn't make the existence of God any more probable.3. "Who, or what, decided that every piece of matter be composed of atoms? Who decided that nothing can go faster than the speed of light?"Nothing. It just happened that way. Asking why the universe is the way it is is a pretty futile question. Does there need to be a why? (No is the answer to that question.)4. "Is this all just a coincidence?"Most likely. Again, does the universe need a why? Maybe there is no answer. Maybe the universe just exists just because. However, I find the proposition that god made it to be an irrational claim.5. "Are you, every thought you've thought, every emotion you've ever felt and every decision you've ever made just a by product of a grand coincidence?"Maybe. If all these things are true, then O.K. That's great. Personally I believe that this is the case, and that I am just a product of random chance. Lucky for me. These things are what I consider the truth, and I am not afraid of them. So what if we are all products of chance? That should not make any of us any less valuable.I look forward to your rebuttal and any further arguments you may have.
The Christian God exists

Thank you for this debate opportunity; I look forward to some good arguments. I would like to begin by asking you how you believe that you came into existence. I am not looking for an answer such as "at the moment of conception..." but how you think that you and every other thing in this universe came to be. Could it have been as simple as a big bang? Who, or what, decided that every piece of matter be composed of atoms? Who decided that nothing can go faster than the speed of light? Is this all just a coincidence? Are you, every thought you've thought, every emotion you've ever felt and every decision you've ever made just a by product of a grand coincidence? Obviously I haven't begun to prove the existence of God but I thought I'd start by giving you some ideas for your rebuttal.
The Christian God exists

Round 1: Opening ArgumentRound 2: RebuttalsRound 3: Counter-rebuttalsRound 4: Closing ArgumentsThe BoP is on Christians. If you'd like to debate that, message me. For this debate, Christians must prove that their God exists. You may use any type of evidence you'd like, however some types of evidence are more easily dismissed than others. New ideas and arguments may be put out at any time, save for round 4. I don't really need a starting argument, as the burden of proof is on Pro, so good luck, and I await your arguments.
The recent and forthcoming tobacco tax is a good idea.

The increasing tobacco tax will help a lot of government agencies, whether it's federal government or local and state. It will help many hurting families and companies. In my county, the school system is hurting very badly. By pumping more money into our economy with a tax increase on something so unnecessary, it will help a lot of these schools in need. More than 100 teaching positions were cut for the 2009-2010 school year in our county, which will bump class sizes up. At 30 students per classroom, this will make it difficult to teach and to learn. With the growing population of smokers, it is only right to bump up the prices of cigarettes in our country. It is not that i think it is immoral to smoke, it is the smartest thing to tax at the moment.
The recent and forthcoming tobacco tax is a good idea.

I am for this tobacco tax for two reasons. One, it will gain a lot of money for the state/country. Two, it will force some people to quit, which will save tons of money. Yes, I am very much against smoking. I think it is a disgusting habit, and it does not make you look "cool." My family, and several other families, would probably be a lot better off if they weren't spending so much money buying cigarettes. It is very expensive, even in the state with the third lowest tobacco tax in the country. Whether it's paying for necessary things, like food or gas money, I think the choice is obvious. I will go into more detail on how it will gain money for the government in the next round.